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 *

345 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12038910)

  • 21. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
    Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
    Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. What Does It Take to Change an Editor's Mind? Identifying Minimally Important Difference Thresholds for Peer Reviewer Rating Scores of Scientific Articles.
    Callaham M; John LK
    Ann Emerg Med; 2018 Sep; 72(3):314-318.e2. PubMed ID: 29310871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process.
    Nagler A; Ovitsh R; Dumenco L; Whicker S; Engle DL; Goodell K
    Acad Med; 2019 Oct; 94(10):1437-1442. PubMed ID: 31135399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
    Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
    Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
    Cho MK; Justice AC; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 9676669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Richardson ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The use of dedicated methodology and statistical reviewers for peer review: a content analysis of comments to authors made by methodology and regular reviewers.
    Day FC; Schriger DL; Todd C; Wears RL
    Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):329-33. PubMed ID: 12192359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
    Tite L; Schroter S
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Influence of external peer reviewer scores for funding applications on funding board decisions: a retrospective analysis of 1561 reviews.
    Sorrell L; Mcardle N; Becque T; Payne H; Stuart B; Turner S; Wyatt JC
    BMJ Open; 2018 Dec; 8(12):e022547. PubMed ID: 30552251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
    Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
    Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Development and Validation of a Scoring Rubric for Editorial Evaluation of Peer-review Quality: A Pilot Study.
    Love JN; Messman AM; Ilgen JS; Merritt C; Coates WC; Ander DS; Way DP
    West J Emerg Med; 2024 Mar; 25(2):254-263. PubMed ID: 38596927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
    Wade D; Tennant A
    Clin Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 18(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 15053119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.
    Lovejoy TI; Revenson TA; France CR
    Ann Behav Med; 2011 Aug; 42(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 21505912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.