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 *

507 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10613000)

  • 1. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument.
    Landkroon AP; Euser AM; Veeken H; Hart W; Overbeke AJ
    Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):979-85. PubMed ID: 17012462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
    Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
    Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
    Rajesh A; Cloud G; Harisinghani MG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 23255737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
    Hughes TJ
    Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
    Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
    Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
    Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 26.