Review papers are important and worth writing

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 1929-1930

  Suter, Glenn W ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SILVER;

ECOTOXICOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; POLLUTION MONITORING; PUBLISHING;

CAREER; CONSENSUS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION; KNOWLEDGE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RECOGNITION; REVIEW; SCIENTIST; TOXICITY; WRITING;

PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84880984902     PISSN: 07307268     EISSN: 15528618     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/etc.2316     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Vanclay JK. 2012. Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification? Scientometrics 92:211-238.
2. Suter GW, Cormier S. 2013. Pragmatism: A practical philosophy for environmental scientists. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:181-184.
3. Ratte HT. 1999. Bioaccumulation and toxicity of silver compounds: A review. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:89-108.
4. Erickson R. 2013. The biotic ligand model approach to addressing effects of exposure water chemistry on aquatic toxicity of metals: Genesis and challenges. Environ Toxicol Chem 32:1212-1214.
5. Suter GW II. 1993. A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indices. Environ Toxicol Chem 12:1533-1539.
6. Ankley G, Mihaich E, Stahl R, Tillitt D, Colborn T, McMaster S, Miller R, Bantle J, Campbell P, Denslow N, Dickerson R, Folmar L, Fry M, Giesy J, Gray LE, Guiney P, Hutchinson T, Kennedy S, Kramer V, LeBlanc G, Mayes M, Nimrod A, Patino R, Peterson R, Purdy R, Ringer R, Thomas P, Touart L, Van der Kraak G, Zacharewski T. 1998. Overview of a workshop on screening methods for detecting potential (anti-) estrogenic/androgenic chemicals in wildlife. Environ Toxicol Chem 17:68-87.
7. Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. 2003. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J Roy Soc Med 96:118-121.
8. Pullin AS, Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 20:1647-1656.
9. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McCoy N, Sutton SF, Lux L. 2002. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 47. US Public Health Service, Washington, DC.
10. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M. 2004. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician 69:548-556.
11. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünermann JH, Edejer T, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Zaza S. 2004. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Brit Med J 328:1-8.
12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. 1996. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1-12.
13. Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. 2007. Synthesizing Qualitative and Quantitative Health Evidence: A Guide to Methods. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.