- Location
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- ISSN
-
1741-7015
- Extent
-
Online-Ressource
- Language
-
Englisch
- Notes
-
online resource.
- Bibliographic citation
-
A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals ; volume:14 ; number:1 ; day:2 ; month:2 ; year:2016 ; pages:1-17 ; date:12.2016
BMC medicine ; 14, Heft 1 (2.2.2016), 1-17, 12.2016
- Creator
-
Galipeau, James
- Contributor
-
Barbour, Virginia
Baskin, Patricia
Bell-Syer, Sally
Cobey, Kelly
Cumpston, Miranda
Deeks, Jon
Garner, Paul
MacLehose, Harriet
Shamseer, Larissa
Straus, Sharon
Tugwell, Peter
Wager, Elizabeth
Winker, Margaret
Moher, David
SpringerLink (Online service)
- DOI
-
10.1186/s12916-016-0561-2
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:1111-201602282179
- Rights
-
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Last update
-
15.08.2025, 7:37 AM CEST
Data provider
This object is provided by:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Associated
- Galipeau, James
- Barbour, Virginia
- Baskin, Patricia
- Bell-Syer, Sally
- Cobey, Kelly
- Cumpston, Miranda
- Deeks, Jon
- Garner, Paul
- MacLehose, Harriet
- Shamseer, Larissa
- Straus, Sharon
- Tugwell, Peter
- Wager, Elizabeth
- Winker, Margaret
- Moher, David
- SpringerLink (Online service)
Other Objects (12)
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement
Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers
Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'
Resources for authors of reports of randomized trials: harnessing the wisdom of authors, editors, and readers
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review
A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?
Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research
Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
Happy birthday: we are one year old
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement
Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers
Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'
Resources for authors of reports of randomized trials: harnessing the wisdom of authors, editors, and readers
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review
A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?
Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research
Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials
Happy birthday: we are one year old
Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement
Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers
Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'
Resources for authors of reports of randomized trials: harnessing the wisdom of authors, editors, and readers
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review
A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals
Checklists to detect potential predatory biomedical journals: a systematic review
Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?
Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research
Erratum to: Thanks to all those who reviewed for systematic reviews in 2014
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials