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 *

258 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10789326)

  • 1. Open peer review: a randomised controlled trial.
    Walsh E; Rooney M; Appleby L; Wilkinson G
    Br J Psychiatry; 2000 Jan; 176():47-51. PubMed ID: 10789326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
    McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
    Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
    Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial.
    Godlee F; Gale CR; Martyn CN
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):237-40. PubMed ID: 9676667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.
    Heim A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2018 Oct; 16(1):191. PubMed ID: 30318018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?
    Allen TW
    J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2013 Dec; 113(12):916-20. PubMed ID: 24285034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.
    Fox CW
    Proc Biol Sci; 2021 Oct; 288(1961):20211399. PubMed ID: 34702079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Improving the peer-review process from the perspective of an author and reviewer.
    Faggion CM
    Br Dent J; 2016 Feb; 220(4):167-8. PubMed ID: 26917302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
    Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials.
    Del Mar C; Hoffmann TC
    BMC Med; 2015 Nov; 13():248. PubMed ID: 26521647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper.
    Kumar PD
    J Assoc Physicians India; 1999 Feb; 47(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 10999090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.