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 *

162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11512209)

  • 1. Garbage in, garbage out.
    Brink PJ
    West J Nurs Res; 1999 Dec; 21(6):725-7. PubMed ID: 11512209
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer Review: The Science of Nursing Education Depends on It.
    Patterson BJ
    Nurs Educ Perspect; 2015; 36(2):75. PubMed ID: 29194129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Weighing up research.
    Joseph S
    Nurs Stand; 2009 Mar 18-24; 23(28):61. PubMed ID: 19400372
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Guidelines for writing journal articles in English.
    Suh MH
    Taehan Kanho Hakhoe Chi; 2004 Jun; 34(4):601-7. PubMed ID: 15502425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A rose by any other name is still a rose: assessing journal quality.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2007; 55(4):163-4. PubMed ID: 17678678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The contemporary landscape of journal publishing.
    McKenna L
    Collegian; 2016; 23(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 27188033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [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. [Methods and instruments of research. Analysis of various articles].
    Riv Inferm; 1996; 15(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9001064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Scientific integrity and the journal review process.
    Becker PT
    Res Nurs Health; 1998 Aug; 21(4):283-4. PubMed ID: 9679805
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Can you believe what you read?
    Woods A
    Nurs Manage; 2003 Aug; 34(8):4. PubMed ID: 12888721
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Perceived journal quality: an indicator of research quality.
    Fahy K; Fenwick J
    Women Birth; 2008 Sep; 21(3):97-8. PubMed ID: 18657498
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 18. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):169-70. PubMed ID: 20637926
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The "so what" question: the impact of nursing research.
    Mitchell PH
    J Prof Nurs; 2004; 20(6):347-8. PubMed ID: 15599866
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.