These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10220935)

  • 21. Opinion based assessment.
    Lodi G; Sardella A; Demarosi F; Carrassi A
    Br Dent J; 2007 Oct; 203(7):377. PubMed ID: 17934400
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The Science hoax: poor journalology reflects poor training in peer review.
    Kumar R
    BMJ; 2013 Dec; 347():f7465. PubMed ID: 24336454
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Implementation of a journal peer reviewer stratification system based on quality and reliability.
    Green SM; Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 57(2):149-152.e4. PubMed ID: 20947204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Why a journal oversight committee?
    Hoey J; Todkill AM
    CMAJ; 2003 Feb; 168(3):287-8. PubMed ID: 12566333
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers].
    Alfonso F
    Neurologia; 2010; 25(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 21093700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. How does peer review work?
    Aaron L
    Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Support for peer review.
    Nat Immunol; 2010 Dec; 11(12):1063. PubMed ID: 21079625
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The peer-review process.
    Pearson GS
    Perspect Psychiatr Care; 2014 Apr; 50(2):77-8. PubMed ID: 24689488
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reviewing the right papers.
    Gophna U
    FEMS Microbiol Lett; 2020 Jan; 367(1):. PubMed ID: 32083650
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. French ethics panel warns of 'crisis' in science reporting.
    Butler D
    Nature; 1995 Jul; 376(6536):108. PubMed ID: 7603550
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The illusion of scientific objectivity and the death of the investigator.
    Richardson ET; Polyakova A
    Eur J Clin Invest; 2012 Feb; 42(2):213-5. PubMed ID: 21752023
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Peer review perspective for early career psychiatrists.
    Gelenberg AJ
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599. PubMed ID: 20031101
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Integrity of this journal.
    Perel ML
    Implant Dent; 2015 Apr; 24(2):131. PubMed ID: 25706265
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication.
    Muir-Cochrane E
    Nurs Health Sci; 2013 Sep; 15(3):263-4. PubMed ID: 24021114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. How would you recognise a good review?
    Perkins D
    Aust J Rural Health; 2014 Aug; 22(4):143-4. PubMed ID: 25123615
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. What can CCR do for you?
    Potash J; Anderson KC
    Clin Cancer Res; 2010 Aug; 16(16):4069-70. PubMed ID: 20682715
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Discrimination in Social Science & Medicine?
    Waitzkin H
    Int J Health Serv; 1990; 20(3):525-31. PubMed ID: 2384291
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Peer review in PLoS Medicine.
    The
    PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e58. PubMed ID: 17411325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Peering into peer review: Galileo, ESP, Dr Scott Reuben, and advancing our professional evolution.
    Biddle C
    AANA J; 2011 Oct; 79(5):365-6. PubMed ID: 23256263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Should there be statistical guidelines for medical research papers?
    Biometrics; 1978 Dec; 34(4):687-95. PubMed ID: 749952
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.