DerraikJGBButlerÉMRerkasemK. Publishing without perishing: a guide to the successful reporting of clinical data. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(3):219–227. doi:10.1177/1534734619865860
2.
DerraikJGBParklakWAlbertBBBoonyapranaiKRerkasemK. Fundamentals of data collection in clinical studies: simple steps to avoid “garbage in, garbage out”. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(3):183–187. doi:10.1177/1534734620938234
3.
PapanasNLazaridesMK. Writing a case report: polishing a gem?Int Angiol. 2008;27(4):344–349.
4.
LazaridesMKLazaridouIZPapanasN. Review article: the flagship of evidence-based medicine. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2021;20(2):83–87. doi:10.1177/1534734621995636
5.
MantsiouCLiakosAMainouMPapanasNTsapasABekiariE. A simple guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025;24(4):894–899. doi:10.1177/15347346231169842
6.
LazaridesMKLazaridouIZPapanasN. Bibliometric analysis: bridging informatics with science. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025;24(3):515–517. doi:10.1177/15347346231153538
7.
LiakosAPagkalidouEKaragiannisT, et al.A simple guide to randomized controlled trials. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025;24(3):518–524. doi:10.1177/15347346241236385
8.
PapanasNGeorgiadisGSDemetriouMLazaridesMKMaltezosE. Creating a successful poster: “beauty is truth, truth beauty”. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(1):6–9. doi:10.1177/1534734619836018
9.
LazaridesMKPapanasN. Authorship disputes: an endemic plague. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025;24(4):872–874. doi:10.1177/15347346251341635
10.
LazaridesMKMavroforouAPapanasN. The “self-plagiarism” oxymoron: in need to change a misnomer. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2024;23(3):353–355. doi:10.1177/15347346241274075
11.
LazaridesMKGeorgiadisGSPapanasN. Elevator speeches (pitches) and the pareto principle. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025;24(3):513–514. doi:10.1177/15347346231197499
12.
LazaridesMKGougoudiEPapanasN. Pitfalls and misconducts in medical writing. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18(4):350–353. doi:10.1177/1534734619870083
13.
PapanasNGeorgiadisGSMaltezosELazaridesMK. Writing a research abstract: eloquence in miniature. Int Angiol. 2012;31(3):297–302.
14.
GrovesTAbbasiK. Screening research papers by reading abstracts. Br Med J.2004;329(7464):470–471. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7464.470
15.
LazaridesMKGeorgiadisGSPapanasN. Do's and don'ts for a good reviewer of scientific papers: a beginner's brief decalogue. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2020;19(3):227–229. doi:10.1177/1534734620924349
16.
PapanasNMikhailidisDP. Alice through the looking-glass: can we improve peer review?Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2024;23(3):356–359. doi:10.1177/15347346221084784
17.
PapanasNMikhailidisDP. A call to encourage participation in the reviewing process: the REFEREE acrostic. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2024;23(4):497–498. doi:10.1177/15347346221102645
18.
PapanasNMaltezosELazaridesMK. Editorials: a rose is a rose. Int Angiol. 2009;28(6):429–430.
19.
PapanasNGeorgiadisGSMaltezosELazaridesMK. Letters to the editor: definitely not children of a lesser god. Int Angiol. 2009;28(5):418–420.
20.
PapanasNMikhailidisDPMukherjeeD. All journals should include a correspondence section. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(39):5731–5734. doi:10.3748/wjg.v28.i39.5731
