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 *

133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11005535)

  • 1. Peer review. The millennium engima: more is less.
    Gordon LH
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2000 Sep; 82(9):1361-2. PubMed ID: 11005535
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Full disclosure of financial interests in biomedical publications--a reminder.
    Bailey BJ
    Laryngoscope; 2002 Feb; 112(2):211-2. PubMed ID: 11889370
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Thoughts of a manuscript reviewer.
    Bluestone N
    Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 1996; 59(3):14-8. PubMed ID: 9074317
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review: "a critique of the critics".
    Andersson KE
    J Urol; 2011 Sep; 186(3):777-8. PubMed ID: 21788036
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Paranoid about peer review?
    Rumjanek FD
    Nature; 1996 Dec; 384(6609):509. PubMed ID: 8955262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Integrity of the peer review process.
    Smith ER
    Can J Cardiol; 2000 Jun; 16(6):814. PubMed ID: 10863172
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ensuring the quality of peer-review process.
    Afifi M
    Saudi Med J; 2006 Aug; 27(8):1253. PubMed ID: 16883466
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
    Jefferson T; Shashok K
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Foot print of a paper: accountability in academic publishing.
    Mani H
    Lancet; 2016 Aug; 388(10044):562-3. PubMed ID: 27511782
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Some rules for writing medical articles for peer-reviewed journals.
    Shah J
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 May; 97(4):252-4. PubMed ID: 26263929
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Readers' and author's responses to "are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete?".
    Goldstone RA
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):70; author reply 70. PubMed ID: 16967523
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Blind faith.
    Steers WD
    J Urol; 2006 Nov; 176(5):1905-6. PubMed ID: 17070206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reference accuracy in peer-reviewed pediatric orthopaedic literature.
    Barnes MR
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2010 Nov; 92(15):2620; author reply 2620. PubMed ID: 21048192
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Confidentiality.
    Guenin LM
    Science; 1996 Mar; 271(5257):1790. PubMed ID: 8596940
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. True, false, whatever.
    Schultz S
    US News World Rep; 2001 Sep; 131(10):72-3. PubMed ID: 11573469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The difference between peer review and nonpeer review.
    Wood BD; Ludwig RL
    Radiol Technol; 2012; 84(1):90-2. PubMed ID: 22988268
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Next steps in the Schön affair.
    Kennedy D
    Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Beyond the language barrier.
    Umakantha N
    Nature; 1997 Feb; 385(6619):764. PubMed ID: 9039902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.