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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12146665)

  • 1. Peer-review: let's imitate the lawyers!
    Jelicic M; Merckelbach H
    Cortex; 2002 Jun; 38(3):406-7. PubMed ID: 12146665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The insularity bias.
    Henderson A
    Cortex; 2002 Jun; 38(3):421-4. PubMed ID: 12146673
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The peer-review process: accept, revise, or reject?
    Bock O
    Cortex; 2002 Jun; 38(3):419-20. PubMed ID: 12146672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer-review in neuropsychology: can we increase effectiveness without sacrificing rigor?
    Bornstein RF
    Cortex; 2002 Jun; 38(3):403-5. PubMed ID: 12146664
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Expert bias in peer review.
    Phillips JS
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2011 Dec; 27(12):2229-33. PubMed ID: 21992074
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review: problem or solution in relation to publication bias, transparency and the internationalisation of scientific research outputs?
    O'Connor SJ
    Eur J Cancer Care (Engl); 2012 Nov; 21(6):701-2. PubMed ID: 23078275
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal.
    Duff K; O'Bryant SE; Westervelt HJ; Sweet JJ; Reynolds CR; van Gorp WG; Tranel D; McCaffrey RJ
    Arch Clin Neuropsychol; 2009 May; 24(3):201-7. PubMed ID: 19640873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Not for your eyes: information concealed through publication bias.
    Kittisupamongkol W
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2009 Mar; 147(3):558; author reply 558-9. PubMed ID: 19217959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Not for your eyes: information concealed through publication bias.
    Liesegang TJ; Albert DM; Schachat AP
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2008 Nov; 146(5):638-40. PubMed ID: 18984084
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The significance of the peer review process against the background of bias: priority ratings of reviewers and editors and the prediction of citation, the role of geographical bias.
    Opthof T; Coronel R; Janse MJ
    Cardiovasc Res; 2002 Dec; 56(3):339-46. PubMed ID: 12445872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial.
    Emerson GB; Warme WJ; Wolf FM; Heckman JD; Brand RA; Leopold SS
    Arch Intern Med; 2010 Nov; 170(21):1934-9. PubMed ID: 21098355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Submissions, impact factor, reviewer's recommendations and geographical bias within the peer review system (1997-2002): focus on Germany.
    Opthof T; Coronel R; Janse MJ;
    Cardiovasc Res; 2002 Aug; 55(2):215-9. PubMed ID: 12123756
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review warts and all.
    Nat Struct Mol Biol; 2004 Aug; 11(8):679. PubMed ID: 15280874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
    Yucha CB
    Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. All the lonely people: by Caveman.
    J Cell Sci; 2004 Aug; 117(Pt 17):3705-6. PubMed ID: 15286170
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cortex forum on peer-review multiple submissions.
    Carlstedt RA
    Cortex; 2002 Jun; 38(3):411. PubMed ID: 12146667
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Naïve views of peer-review and what do they tell us.
    Marques JF
    Cortex; 2002 Jun; 38(3):417-8. PubMed ID: 12146671
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [How strict should editors be? Nothing is done for the sake of errors].
    Eklund J
    Lakartidningen; 2004 Dec; 101(51-52):4250. PubMed ID: 15658596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. On publication of a manuscript: the author, the reviewer and the editor.
    Tonkin M
    Hand Surg; 2013; 18(3):ix-x. PubMed ID: 24156598
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Striving for a more perfect peer review: editors confront strengths, flaws of biomedical literature.
    Kuehn BM
    JAMA; 2013 Nov; 310(17):1781-3. PubMed ID: 24193063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.