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.

10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002547 C5001634!5001634 !27564858     free     free     free Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\27564858 .jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       PLoS+Biol 2016 ; 14 (8 ): e1002547 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=27564858 |t=2016. Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective |pdf=|usr=}}{{27564858 }} gab.com Text Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective JO: PLoS Biol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27564858 #FOAvip Scientists, public servants, and patient advocates alike increasingly question the validity of published scientific results, endangering the public's acceptance of science. Here, I argue that emerging flaws in the integrity of the peer review system are largely responsible. Distortions in peer review are driven by economic forces and enabled by a lack of accountability of journals, editors, and authors. One approach to restoring trust in the validity of published results may be to establish basic rules that render peer review more transparent, such as publishing the reviews (a practice already embraced by some journals) and monitoring not only the track records of authors but also of editors and journals. Twit Text FOAVip Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective ????PLoS Biol http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27564858 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=27564858 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|27564858 }}</ref> Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective #MMPMID27564858 Südhof TC PLoS Biol 2016[Aug]; 14 (8 ): e1002547 PMID27564858 show ga Scientists, public servants, and patient advocates alike increasingly question the validity of published scientific results, endangering the public's acceptance of science. Here, I argue that emerging flaws in the integrity of the peer review system are largely responsible. Distortions in peer review are driven by economic forces and enabled by a lack of accountability of journals, editors, and authors. One approach to restoring trust in the validity of published results may be to establish basic rules that render peer review more transparent, such as publishing the reviews (a practice already embraced by some journals) and monitoring not only the track records of authors but also of editors and journals. |Biomedical Research/*standards [MESH] |Editorial Policies [MESH] |Humans [MESH] |Peer Review, Research/*standards [MESH] |Publishing/*standards [MESH] |Quality Control [MESH]Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing