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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10786470)

  • 1. Receiving feedback from reviewers: how to make the most of criticism.
    Koop PM
    Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(4):148-50. PubMed ID: 10786470
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
    Algase DL
    Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review of nursing research proposals.
    Lindquist RD; Tracy MF; Treat-Jacobson D
    Am J Crit Care; 1995 Jan; 4(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 7894558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Mohr WK
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(5):239. PubMed ID: 19789000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Research peer review: a committee when none is required.
    Martin PA
    Appl Nurs Res; 1998 May; 11(2):90-2. PubMed ID: 9627436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Skilled peer review: a road map to stronger scholarship.
    Kearney MH
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 2006; 35(4):443. PubMed ID: 16881987
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing.
    Katz A
    Oncol Nurs Forum; 2016 Nov; 43(6):675-676. PubMed ID: 27768133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Critically evaluating research studies.
    Rogers B
    AAOHN J; 1995 Jan; 43(1):54-5. PubMed ID: 7695808
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reviewing a manuscript for publication: how do I do this?
    Koop PP
    Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(3):107-9. PubMed ID: 10703301
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Grant reviews: how to do them well.
    Koop PM
    Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(2):61-3. PubMed ID: 10703294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Re-reviewing peer review.
    Yaffe MB
    Sci Signal; 2009 Aug; 2(85):eg11. PubMed ID: 19706869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Learning to give and accept research critiques: some unique models.
    Ingram C
    Can Oncol Nurs J; 2000; 10(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 10887858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Manuscript revision strategies.
    Conn VS
    West J Nurs Res; 2007 Nov; 29(7):786-8. PubMed ID: 17968004
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The art of criticism.
    Parse RR
    Nurs Sci Q; 1998; 11(2):43. PubMed ID: 10036454
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Predatory publishing: What editors need to know.
    INANE Predatory Publishing Practices Collaborative
    CANNT J; 2015; 25(1):8-10. PubMed ID: 26882636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Publication ethics.
    Hays JC
    Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Making processes transparent.
    King KM
    Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2003; 13(1):31-2. PubMed ID: 12703104
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The introduction of a performance-based system for funding research.
    Smith T
    Nurs Prax N Z; 2006 Mar; 22(1):2-5. PubMed ID: 17205666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How to critique a research study.
    Fosbinder D; Loveridge C
    Adv Pract Nurs Q; 1996; 2(3):68-71. PubMed ID: 9447093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.