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 *

200 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11078775)

  • 21. Three cheers for peers.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. PLoS stays afloat with bulk publishing.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2008 Jul; 454(7200):11. PubMed ID: 18596768
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 24. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A look inside the Pharos review process.
    Harris ED
    Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Publishing in English-language journals.
    Davis AJ; Tschudin V
    Nurs Ethics; 2007 May; 14(3):425-30. PubMed ID: 17459824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 28. Why buy a medical journal?
    Brown AF
    Emerg Med Australas; 2004 Feb; 16(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 15239745
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Double check casts doubt on statistics in published papers.
    Pearson H
    Nature; 2004 Jun; 429(6991):490. PubMed ID: 15175712
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Alternative peer review system: Peer agreement system.
    Loonen MP
    J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg; 2010 Nov; 63(11):1931-2. PubMed ID: 20381440
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Making sure corrections don't vanish online.
    Shim EH; Parekh V
    Nature; 2005 Mar; 434(7029):18; discussion 18. PubMed ID: 15744271
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Dangers of over-dependence on peer-reviewed publication.
    Nature; 1999 Oct; 401(6755):727. PubMed ID: 10548083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Keeping peer-reviewed publication relevant in the internet age.
    Randleman JB
    J Refract Surg; 2012 Jul; 28(7):447-8. PubMed ID: 22767161
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Developing effective editorial boards for hospital-based newsletters and magazines.
    Jones S
    Nurse Author Ed; 1994; 4(3):2-4, 7. PubMed ID: 7849789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB
    Neurobiol Dis; 2009 Mar; 33(3):313-4. PubMed ID: 19218038
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Bad peer reviewers.
    Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. CDR Review's editorial process: a survey of papers published in 1995.
    Handysides S
    Commun Dis Rep CDR Rev; 1996 Nov; 6(12):R176-8. PubMed ID: 8972982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Journal lays bare remarks from peer reviewers.
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7077):642. PubMed ID: 16467803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB; Maunsell JH
    Neuroinformatics; 2009 Jun; 7(2):89-91. PubMed ID: 19172416
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Duplicate publication, Part 2: A case analysis.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 2002; 12(4):7-8. PubMed ID: 12374002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.