Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.12688/f1000research.6488.1 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.12688/f1000research.6488.1 C4457117!4457117 !26097694     free     free     free Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26097694 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       F1000Res 2015 ; 4 (ä): 112 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26097694 |t=2015. The five deadly sins of science publishing |pdf=|usr=}}{{26097694 }} gab.com Text The five deadly sins of science publishing JO: F1000Res http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26097694 #FOAvip Science cannot progress without scientists reporting their findings. And yet researchers have given control of this central pillar of the scientific process to science publishers, who are in the business of serving the interests of their journals; these are not always the same as the interests of science. This editorial describes the problems with the process of preparing and publishing research findings, and with judging their veracity and significance, and then explains how we at Faculty of 1000 are starting to tackle the 'deadly sins' of science publishing. Twit Text FOAVip The five deadly sins of science publishing ????F1000Res http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26097694 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26097694 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26097694 }}</ref> The five deadly sins of science publishing #MMPMID26097694 Tracz V F1000Res 2015[]; 4 (ä): 112 PMID26097694 show ga Science cannot progress without scientists reporting their findings. And yet researchers have given control of this central pillar of the scientific process to science publishers, who are in the business of serving the interests of their journals; these are not always the same as the interests of science. This editorial describes the problems with the process of preparing and publishing research findings, and with judging their veracity and significance, and then explains how we at Faculty of 1000 are starting to tackle the 'deadly sins' of science publishing. äThe five deadly sins of science publishing (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing