Reviews Journals Have editors got their priorities right? BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1113 (Published 06 November 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1113 Article Related content Metrics Responses Peer review Related articles Editor's Choice Claims and counter claims Published: 06 November 2003; BMJ 327 doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.0-g Letter Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud Published: 22 January 2004; BMJ 328 doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7433.230 See more Introductory Address Prov Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 1-4; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.1 Report of the Meeting of the Eastern Branch of the Provincial Association at Bury St. Edmond's Prov Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 10-13; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.10 Mr. Warburton's Bill for the Regulation of the Medical Profession Prov Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 13-15; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.13 An Atlas of Plates, illustrative of the Principles and Practice of Obstetric Medicine and Surgery, with descriptive Letterpress Prov Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 4; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.4 A Practical Treatise on the Diseases peculiar to Women, illustrated by Cases, &c Prov Med Surg J October 03, 1840, s1-1 (1) 4-5; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.s1-1.1.4-a Cited by... Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: Everyone in science must be active in its processFulltext Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: External checks must be imposed to protect the publicFulltext Editors and their priorities about libel and fraud: We need whistleblowersFulltext
