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 *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10630714)

  • 21. [Is it worthwhile to be a reviewer for a medical-scientific journal?].
    Shoenfeld Y; Shemer J; Keren G
    Harefuah; 2009 Dec; 148(12):824. PubMed ID: 20088435
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Editing and publishing of a medical journal. Success of an unconventional workflow.
    Antony SX; Al-Hussaini A
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S13-7. PubMed ID: 14968185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Book reviews--keeping up to date in the era of the information super highway.
    Millar B
    J Clin Nurs; 1999 Sep; 8(5):485-6. PubMed ID: 10786518
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The value of nursing journals.
    Smith JP
    J Adv Nurs; 1996 Jul; 24(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 8807367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Being critical and constructive: a guide to peer reviewing for librarians.
    Akers KG
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2017 Jan; 105(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 28096739
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Open-access journal will publish first, judge later.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7123):9. PubMed ID: 17203032
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Scientific letters.
    Henly SJ
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(5):301. PubMed ID: 18794713
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Change to Open Peer Commentary format.
    Perlovsky L; Duermeijer C
    Phys Life Rev; 2010 Mar; 7(1):1. PubMed ID: 20374915
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Civil, sensible, and constructive peer review in APS journals.
    Raff H; Brown D
    Physiol Genomics; 2013 Aug; 45(15):629-30. PubMed ID: 23695886
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. What can I believe? Peer review, innovation, and 90 years of academic medicine.
    Sklar DP
    Acad Med; 2015 Aug; 90(8):999-1000. PubMed ID: 26218354
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Nature journals offer double-blind review.
    Nature; 2015 Feb; 518(7539):274. PubMed ID: 25693523
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
    Manske PR
    J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The peer review process II: to review and be reviewed.
    Riss P
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 May; 23(5):513-4. PubMed ID: 21901437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [The ideal medical journal in the age of IT].
    Nylenna M
    Lakartidningen; 2004 Jan; 101(1-2):60-3. PubMed ID: 14763006
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
    Döring TF
    Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Peer reviewed journals, science and social justice.
    Malone RE
    Tob Control; 2012 Jan; 21(1):1. PubMed ID: 22184264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
    Davies J
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Open journals' records to give reviewers their due.
    Fassati A
    Nature; 2007 May; 447(7144):528. PubMed ID: 17538595
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Disruption to science in developing countries.
    Barcinski MA
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The importance of peer review.
    Poland GA
    Vaccine; 2013 Jan; 31(4):567-83. PubMed ID: 23298688
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.