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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12511927)

  • 21. What's next for Registered Reports?
    Chambers C
    Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
    Gibson TA
    Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Training peer reviewers.
    Mackey DA
    Nature; 2006 Oct; 443(7113):880. PubMed ID: 17106961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Unscientific practice flourishes in science.
    Smith R
    BMJ; 1998 Apr; 316(7137):1036. PubMed ID: 9552902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
    Guglielmi G
    Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Q&A: The global view.
    Dong-Yan J; Cheung F
    Nature; 2015 Apr; 520(7549):S37. PubMed ID: 25924200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
    List A
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
    Brookfield J
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
    Korngreen A
    Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Teaching at the university level is not a hassle.
    Gagliano Taliun SA
    Nature; 2019 Oct; 574(7777):285. PubMed ID: 31591538
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Not-so-deep impact.
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7045):1003-4. PubMed ID: 15973362
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Nature's guide for mentors.
    Lee A; Dennis C; Campbell P
    Nature; 2007 Jun; 447(7146):791-7. PubMed ID: 17568738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data.
    Nicholson JK
    Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
    Garvalov BK
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.