BMC Medical Ethics 14 (1):14 (2013)

Abstract
Contributing reviewersThe editors of BMC Medical Ethics would like to thank all our reviewers who have contributed to the journal in Volume 13 (2012)
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-14-14
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 62,481
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Evidence for the Effectiveness of Peer Review.Robert H. Fletcher & Suzanne W. Fletcher - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):35-50.
Ethics of Field Research: Do Journals Set the Standard?Helene Marsh & Carole M. Eros - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (3):375-382.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
Professional Ethics Considerations of Research Ethics Board Members in Canada.Maureen Muldoon - 2006 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 25 (1/4):67-80.
Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-Review.J. Angelo Corlett - 2005 - Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4):355-366.
Ethical Concerns of Reviewers: More Issues.V. Wiwanitkit - 2011 - Nursing Ethics 18 (6):862-862.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-04-24

Total views
90 ( #118,453 of 2,446,297 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #148,356 of 2,446,297 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes