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 *

356 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11875838)

  • 1. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) consensus on science with treatment recommendations for pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric basic and advanced life support.
    International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
    Pediatrics; 2006 May; 117(5):e955-77. PubMed ID: 16618790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
    Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Peer review of manuscripts.
    Ludbrook J
    J Clin Neurosci; 2002 Mar; 9(2):105-8. PubMed ID: 11922694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. [The significance of publication in Dutch medical journals using an external peer review system].
    Visser HK
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Apr; 142(14):798-801. PubMed ID: 9646614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'.
    Charlton BG
    Med Hypotheses; 2004; 63(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 15236772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].
    Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
    Lijec Vjesn; 2005; 127(5-6):107-11. PubMed ID: 16281469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Standards for ethical publication.
    Johnson JT; Niparko JK; Levine PA; Kennedy DW; Rudy SF; Weber P; Weber RS; Benninger MS; Rosenfeld RM; Ruben RJ; Smith RJ; Sataloff RT; Weir N
    Am J Otolaryngol; 2007; 28(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17162121
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Role of the manuscript reviewer.
    Peh WC; Ng KH
    Singapore Med J; 2009 Oct; 50(10):931-3; quiz 934. PubMed ID: 19907880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
    Tierney AJ
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.