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 *

256 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10789326)

  • 21. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.
    Hatch CL; Goodman SN
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):273-4. PubMed ID: 9676679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.
    Suzuki K; Edelson A; Iversen LL; Hausmann L; Schulz JB; Turner AJ
    J Neurochem; 2016 Oct; 139 Suppl 2():17-23. PubMed ID: 27534728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
    Black N; van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Smith R; Evans S
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):231-3. PubMed ID: 9676665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. How to review journal manuscripts.
    Rosenfeld RM
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2010 Apr; 142(4):472-86. PubMed ID: 20304264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. What do peer reviewers do?
    Lock S; Smith J
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1341-3. PubMed ID: 2304211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Enhanced peer-review for optimising publication of biomedical papers submitted from low- and middle-income countries: feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.
    Pitman A; Underwood R; Hamilton A; Tyrer P; Yang M
    BJPsych Open; 2019 Mar; 5(2):e20. PubMed ID: 31068231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [A critical review of the "peer review" process].
    Alfonso F
    Arch Cardiol Mex; 2010; 80(4):272-82. PubMed ID: 21169092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.
    Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2015; 18(1):E1-E14. PubMed ID: 25675064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.
    Yarris LM; Gottlieb M; Scott K; Sampson C; Rose E; Chan TM; Ilgen J
    West J Emerg Med; 2017 Jun; 18(4):721-728. PubMed ID: 28611894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
    Yankauer A
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1338-40. PubMed ID: 2304210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.
    Levis AW; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA; Thombs BD
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Dec; 79(6):561-5. PubMed ID: 26337110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison.
    Shamseer L; Moher D; Maduekwe O; Turner L; Barbour V; Burch R; Clark J; Galipeau J; Roberts J; Shea BJ
    BMC Med; 2017 Mar; 15(1):28. PubMed ID: 28298236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The UK National Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Resources and Outcomes Project--a feasibility study of large-scale clinical service peer review.
    Roberts CM; Buckingham RJ; Stone RA; Lowe D; Pearson MG
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2010 Oct; 16(5):927-32. PubMed ID: 20557406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
    Gregory AT; Denniss AR
    Heart Lung Circ; 2019 Aug; 28(8):1148-1153. PubMed ID: 31230792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
    Strayhorn J; McDermott JF; Tanguay P
    Am J Psychiatry; 1993 Jun; 150(6):947-52. PubMed ID: 8494074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.