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 *

239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12038913)

  • 41. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.
    Cobo E; Cortés J; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Selva-O'Callaghan A; Kostov B; García L; Cirugeda L; Altman DG; González JA; Sànchez JA; Miras F; Urrutia A; Fonollosa V; Rey-Joly C; Vilardell M
    BMJ; 2011 Nov; 343():d6783. PubMed ID: 22108262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution.
    Fox CW; Paine CET
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Mar; 9(6):3599-3619. PubMed ID: 30962913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR.
    Chew FS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Mar; 156(3):627-32. PubMed ID: 1899764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Outcomes of COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective audit of author gender and person of colour status.
    Heybati K; Flexman AM; Lorello GR; Mehta S
    Can J Anaesth; 2023 Jun; 70(6):988-994. PubMed ID: 37188835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
    Hughes TJ
    Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The fate of papers rejected by Australian Family Physician.
    Green R; Del Mar C
    Aust Fam Physician; 2006 Aug; 35(8):655-6. PubMed ID: 16915616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
    Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
    Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
    Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal.
    Edwards HA; Schroeder J; Dugdale HL
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0201725. PubMed ID: 30157231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies.
    Evoniuk G; Mansi B; DeCastro B; Sykes J
    BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j1726. PubMed ID: 28432051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?
    Sen CK
    Antioxid Redox Signal; 2012 Feb; 16(4):293-6. PubMed ID: 22098370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Bonekamp S; Halappa VG; Corona-Villalobos CP; Mensa M; Eng J; Lewin JS; Kamel IR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):1247-55. PubMed ID: 22623536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
    Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.
    Flanagin A; Carey LA; Fontanarosa PB; Phillips SG; Pace BP; Lundberg GD; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):222-4. PubMed ID: 9676661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.
    Casnici N; Grimaldo F; Gilbert N; Dondio P; Squazzoni F
    Scientometrics; 2017; 113(1):533-546. PubMed ID: 29056789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Peer review and editorial decision-making.
    Howard L; Wilkinson G
    Br J Psychiatry; 1998 Aug; 173():110-3; discussion 114-5. PubMed ID: 9850221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Editor and authors' psychology and the chance of teaching.
    Grammaticos PC
    Hell J Nucl Med; 2006; 9(3):154-5. PubMed ID: 17160154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.