Comentários sobre artigo de Araújo: os critérios para revisão e publicação de artigos são evidentes?

Comentários sobre artigo de Araújo: os critérios para revisão e publicação de artigos são evidentes?

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Paulo Roberto Benchimol-Barbosa
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC)
Series:	Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
Subjects:	Peer review peer review research scientific and technical publications
Online Access:	http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0066-782X2012001000014&lng=en&tlng=en

Similar Items

Open peer review: some considerations on the selection and management of reviewers
by: Andrea Capaccioni
Published: (2022-12-01)

Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review
by: Piitu Parmanne, et al.
Published: (2023-10-01)

Interactive Open Access Publishing and Peer Review: The Effectiveness and Perspectives of Transparency and Self-Regulation in Scientific Communication and Evaluation
by: Ulrich Poschl
Published: (2010-02-01)

Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals : guidelines for good practice /
by: 484898 Hames, Irene
Published: (2007)

Priority of discovery in the life sciences
by: Ronald D Vale, et al.
Published: (2016-06-01)

Acknowledgement of Reviewers Vol 7 (2019), IJMS
by: Executive Committee of IJMS
Published: (2019-12-01)

Who Is (Likely) Peer-Reviewing Your Papers? A Partial Insight into the World’s Top Reviewers
by: Francesco Pomponi, et al.
Published: (2019-03-01)

Editorial
by: Maryory Astrid Gómez Botero
Published: (2021-11-01)

What makes an eLife paper in epidemiology and global health?
by: Mark Jit, et al.
Published: (2015-10-01)

Making the most of peer review
by: Nikolai Slavov
Published: (2015-11-01)

Acknowledgements
by: Engaged Scholar Journal
Published: (2023-12-01)

Acknowledgements
by: Engaged Scholar Journal
Published: (2022-11-01)

Acknowledgements
by: Engaged Scholar Journal
Published: (2022-12-01)

Peer review: a process undergoing a required transformation
by: Mauro Guerrini, et al.
Published: (2022-12-01)

In Appreciation: A Thank-You to Our Industrious Reviewers
by: Darshana T. Shah
Published: (2022-01-01)

Process of providing scientific evidence: The role of peer review and the motivation of reviewers
by: Mohammadreza Sheikhy-Chaman, et al.
Published: (2022-12-01)

A new twist on peer review
by: Mark Patterson, et al.
Published: (2018-06-01)

Consultative review is worth the wait
by: Stuart RF King
Published: (2017-09-01)

Peer Comment
by: Whitney Battle-Baptiste
Published: (2015-05-01)

Peer Comment: Films, digs and death: a review of the Project Eliseg videos
by: Ben Marwick
Published: (2015-05-01)

Peer Comment
by: Gareth Beale
Published: (2015-05-01)

Peer Comment
by: Andrew Bevan
Published: (2015-05-01)

Peer Comment
by: Paul Mullins
Published: (2015-05-01)

Peer Comment
by: Neil Asher Silberman
Published: (2015-05-01)

Journals Need to Adapt Peer-Review Strictly
by: Ravin Bhandari, et al.
Published: (2022-08-01)

Acknowledgement of Reviewers Vol 6 (2018), IJMS
by: Executive Committee of IJMS
Published: (2018-12-01)

What is Expected from a Reviewer?
by: Grégoire Jean-François Demets
Published: (2021-12-01)

Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis
by: Emily Ford
Published: (2019-10-01)

Motivações e critérios para publicação de artigos científicos
by: Mariana Paranhos de Oliveira, et al.
Published: (2020-06-01)

Peer Review Ethics in Iranian Scientific Journals: Evidence-Based Case Study of the Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM)
by: Reza Rajabali beglou, et al.
Published: (2024-01-01)

Halo Effect in Peer Review: Exploring the Possibility of Bias Associated with the Feeling of Belonging to a Group
by: José Osvaldo De Sordi, et al.
Published: (2020-02-01)

Peer review as a science evaluation tool: main tensions and some alternative proposals
by: Roelvis Ortiz Núñez
Published: (2024-01-01)

A top Cornell food researcher has had 15 studies retracted. That’s a lot.
by: Brian Resnick, et al.
Published: (2019-11-01)

The rhetoric of preprints
by: Rafael Leite Pacheco, et al.
Published: (2022-01-01)

Editorial Misconduct—Definition, Cases, and Causes
by: Matan Shelomi
Published: (2014-04-01)

Decisions, decisions
by: Peter Rodgers
Published: (2017-09-01)

Rooting out bias
by: Bridget M Kuehn
Published: (2017-09-01)

Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact
by: Björk Bo-Christer, et al.
Published: (2012-07-01)

Thank You to Our 2021 Reviewers
by: Claudio Faccenna, et al.
Published: (2022-04-01)

Thank You to Our 2022 Reviewers
by: Claudio Faccenna, et al.
Published: (2023-06-01)