Irina Nast

ETH Zurich

Health ProfessionsMedicine

Pilot corpus only

This score is computed over theSindex pilot corpus and does not cover the full scientific literature. Scores are relative to papers we have ingested — papers, authors, and institutions outside the pilot are not represented. Methodology.

Top 100%percentile

0Author DataRank

Indexed papers

0in pilot corpus

datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Papers

Driven by 1 paper. Top paper: “Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication”.

Do editors and referees look for signs of scientific misconduct when reviewing manuscripts? A quantitative content analysis of studies that examined review criteria and reasons for accepting and rejecting manuscripts for publication

Scientometrics(2008)10.1007/s11192-007-1950-2

N/A

3.1DataRank · unranked

63 citations

Irina Nast, Hans‐Dieter Daniel, Lutz Bornmann