Nature 582 (7811):149 (2020)

Authors
Quan-Hoang Vuong
Phenikaa University
Abstract
The scientific community should agree on the essential information to be provided when pulling a paper from the scientific literature. Nature 582, 149 (2020); doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x
Keywords communication  scientific publishing
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

What’s Happening in Open Science?Adeline Rosenberg - 2020 - Weekly Digest Open Pharma 2020 (6).

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Retractions: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.Quan-Hoang Vuong - 2020 - LSE Impact of Social Sciences 2020 (2):1-4.
Communication scientifique : pour le meilleur et le PEER.Laurent Romary - 2010 - Hermès: La Revue Cognition, communication, politique 57 (2):131.
Empirical Developments in Retraction.B. K. Redman, H. N. Yarandi & J. F. Merz - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):807-809.
Retractions Data Mining #1.Quan-Hoang Vuong & Viet-Phuong La - 2019 - Open Science Framework 2019 (2):1-3.
Oldenburg and the Art of Scientific Communication.Marie Boas Hall - 1965 - British Journal for the History of Science 2 (4):277-290.
Attention and the Art of Scientific Publishing.Arjo Klamer & Hendrik P. Van Dalen - 2002 - Journal of Economic Methodology 9 (3):289-315.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-06-11

Total views
93 ( #103,860 of 2,385,655 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
93 ( #6,172 of 2,385,655 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes