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 *

164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12807814)

  • 1. Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts.
    Ammenwerth E; Wolff AC; Knaup P; Ulmer H; Skonetzki S; van Bemmel JH; McCray AT; Haux R; Kulikowski C
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 2003; 10(5):512-4. PubMed ID: 12807814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals.
    Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of education and research in biomedical informatics.
    van Bemmel JH
    Yearb Med Inform; 2006; ():5-10. PubMed ID: 17051287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reviewing in science requires quality criteria and professional reviewers.
    Jurkat-Rott K; Lehmann-Horn F
    Eur J Cell Biol; 2004 Apr; 83(3):93-5. PubMed ID: 15202567
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Assessing information technologies for health.
    Kulikowski C; Haux R
    Yearb Med Inform; 2006; ():2-4. PubMed ID: 17051286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
    Navalta JW; Lyons TS
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. IMIA and its members: on balancing continuity and transition in biomedical and health informatics.
    Haux R
    Yearb Med Inform; 2009; ():1-6. PubMed ID: 19855862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) consensus on science with treatment recommendations for pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric basic and advanced life support.
    International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
    Pediatrics; 2006 May; 117(5):e955-77. PubMed ID: 16618790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Health care and informatics: on IMIA's opportunities and responsibilities in its 5th decade.
    Haux R
    Yearb Med Inform; 2008; ():1-6. PubMed ID: 18660865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Guide for peer reviewers of scientific articles in the Croatian Medical Journal.
    Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
    Croat Med J; 2005 Apr; 46(2):326-32. PubMed ID: 15849858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The quality of evidence in health informatics: how did the quality of healthcare IT evaluation publications develop from 1982 to 2005?
    de Keizer NF; Ammenwerth E
    Int J Med Inform; 2008 Jan; 77(1):41-9. PubMed ID: 17208040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
    Weng N
    Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
    Rajesh A; Cloud G; Harisinghani MG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 23255737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].
    Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
    Lijec Vjesn; 2005; 127(5-6):107-11. PubMed ID: 16281469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.