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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12146675)

  • 21. Choosing the appropriate peer-reviewed journal for submission of your manuscript.
    Caon M
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2018 Dec; 41(4):779-780. PubMed ID: 30242667
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Editorial Effort for the EFFORT Trial Manuscript Was Worth the Effort.
    August DA
    JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr; 2019 Mar; 43(3):324-325. PubMed ID: 30489646
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Why should I review journal manuscripts?
    Munk PL; Murphy KJ; Nicolaou S; Klass D
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 2014 Aug; 65(3):193. PubMed ID: 25063742
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Improving peer review: What authors can do.
    Baker WL; DiDomenico RJ; Haines ST
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2017 Dec; 74(24):2076-2079. PubMed ID: 29074481
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. How to prepare successful scientific manuscripts: practical advice from editors of radiology journals.
    Offiah AC; Chu WC; Davis R; Dixon AK; Klein JS; Lee EY
    Pediatr Radiol; 2014 Sep; 44(9):1056-7. PubMed ID: 25142328
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. First Impressions Count! Would an Editor Help Dress Your Manuscript for Success?
    Monsivais DB
    Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2017 Aug; 31(3):199-201. PubMed ID: 28793944
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Manuscript processing 101: problems and solutions.
    DiBartola S; Hinchcliff K
    J Vet Intern Med; 1999; 13(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10052055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts?
    Walbot V
    J Biol; 2009; 8(3):24. PubMed ID: 19291274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Publication ethics, national and international regulations].
    Nielsen OH; Riis P
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Apr; 165(16):1646-8. PubMed ID: 12756818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Who did what? (Mis)perceptions about authors' contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship.
    Bhandari M; Einhorn TA; Swiontkowski MF; Heckman JD
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2003 Aug; 85(8):1605-9. PubMed ID: 12925643
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Authors should know who reviewed their articles].
    Johansson BH
    Lakartidningen; 2005 Jul 11-24; 102(28-29):2094; author reply 2094. PubMed ID: 16097188
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [Authors should know who reviewed their articles].
    Sonnsjö B
    Lakartidningen; 2005 Aug 22-28; 102(34):2333. PubMed ID: 16167638
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal.
    Holliday EB; Yang G; Jagsi R; Hoffman KE; Bennett KE; Grace C; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jan; 91(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 25835616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Foreword: Sticks and Stones: Moving Toward a More Productive Peer-Review Process for Authors and Reviewers.
    Miller KH; West DC; Karani R
    Acad Med; 2017 Nov; 92(11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions):Si-Siii. PubMed ID: 29065015
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Tidsskriftet, peer review and medical publishing].
    Bjørheim J; Frich JC; Gjersvik P; Jacobsen G; Swensen E
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Jan; 126(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 16397649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. On peer review.
    Schuklenk U
    Bioethics; 2015 Feb; 29(2):ii-iii. PubMed ID: 25586285
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.