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 *

171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12038922)

  • 1. How statistical expertise is used in medical research.
    Altman DG; Goodman SN; Schroter S
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2817-20. PubMed ID: 12038922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction.
    Weber EJ; Katz PP; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2790-3. PubMed ID: 12038913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.
    Lamb CR; Mai W
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2015; 56(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 24798652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Analysis of the study design and manuscript deficiencies in research articles submitted to Emergency Medicine.
    Taylor DM; Brown AF
    Emerg Med (Fremantle); 2001 Dec; 13(4):444-50. PubMed ID: 11903429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
    Bunner C; Larson EL
    Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms.
    Bates T; Anić A; Marusić M; Marusić A
    JAMA; 2004 Jul; 292(1):86-8. PubMed ID: 15238595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Characteristics and fate of orthodontic articles submitted for publication: An exploratory study of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.
    Farjo N; Turpin DL; Coley RY; Feng J
    Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2015 Jun; 147(6):680-90. PubMed ID: 26038071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Upgrading our instructions for authors.
    Schriger DL; Wears RL; Cooper RJ; Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Apr; 41(4):565-7. PubMed ID: 12658258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
    Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
    Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1415-7. PubMed ID: 12438028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
    Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Quantification of authors' contributions and eligibility for authorship: randomized study in a general medical journal.
    Ivanis A; Hren D; Sambunjak D; Marusić M; Marusić A
    J Gen Intern Med; 2008 Sep; 23(9):1303-10. PubMed ID: 18521691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.