Only connect: The merger of BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology

BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology

Volumn 13, Issue , 2012, Pages

  Moylan, Elizabeth C ^a   Morrey, Christopher ^a   Appleford Cook, Joanne M ^a  

^a BIOMED CENTRAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; EDITORIAL; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; ITALY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; POLICY; ARTICLE; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; PHARMACOLOGY; PUBLICATION;

INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PHARMACOLOGY;

EID: 84872014805     PISSN: 20506511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/2050-6511-13-1     Document Type: Editorial

References (18)

1. Petsko G. When bigger is better. BMC Biol 2010, 8:43.
2. Appleford-Cook J. To reject or not to reject, that is the question. http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcseriesblog/entry/to_reject_or_not_to.
3. Appleford-Cook J. BMC series journals sectioned. http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcseriesblog/search?q=sectioned.
4. O'Neill C. Assessing research impact at the article level. http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcblog/entry/assessing_research_impact_at_the.
5. Suber P. Open access, impact and demand. BMJ 2005, 330. 554905, 15774989.
6. BioMed Central BMC series journals: peer review processes. http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/bmcseries, BioMed Central.
7. Godlee F. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit. JAMA 2002, 287:2762-2765. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2762, 12038905.
8. Groves T. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes. BMJ 2010, 341:c6424. 10.1136/bmj.c6424, 21081602.
9. Pöschl U. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation. Front Comput Neurosci 2012, 6:33. 3389610, 22783183.
10. Khan K. Is open peer review the fairest system? No. BMJ 2010, 341:c6425. 10.1136/bmj.c6425, 21081603.
11. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: A randomised trial. BMJ 1999, 318:23-27. 10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23, 27670, 9872878.
12. Editors TPSM. Peer review in PloS Medicine. PLoS Med. 2007, 4(1):e58. 1790720, 17411325.
13. BioMed Central's position statement on open data. http://blogs.openaccesscentral.com/blogs/bmcblog/resource/opendatastatementdraft.pdf.
14. Groves T, Godlee F. Open Science and reproducible research. BMJ 2012, 344:e4383. 10.1136/bmj.e4383, 22736475.
15. Open Data Award. http://www.biomedcentral.com/researchawards/opendata.
16. Carpenter D. Policy reform: Strengthen and stabilize the FDA. Nature 2012, 485:169-170. 10.1038/485169a, 22575942.
17. Kenakin TP. The Potential for Selective Pharmacological Therapies through Biased Receptor Signaling. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2012, 13:3.
18. Biggin P. An interview with Philip Biggin, Section Editor for Computational, in silico and modelling studies. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2012, 13:2.