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 *

478 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12841086)

  • 1. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
    Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Blind peer review: tips for authors, reviewers, and editors.
    Flanagin A
    Nurse Author Ed; 1994; 4(4):1-2. PubMed ID: 7849791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Peer review: a closed system in need of reform].
    Thörn A
    Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3106-8. PubMed ID: 12198928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.
    Bayne SC; McGivney GP; Mazer SC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):201-18. PubMed ID: 12616242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Don't send it yet! Getting your manuscript ready to submit.
    Robinson R; Rivers DL
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(4):1-4. PubMed ID: 14562511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
    Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
    Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
    Senturia SD
    IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication.
    Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Dec; 195(6):W382-7. PubMed ID: 21098168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Developing new peer reviewers: tips for editors.
    Ohler L
    Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(4):7-9. PubMed ID: 16350891
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Publishing your findings.
    King KM; Price PM
    Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2003; 13(2):46-8. PubMed ID: 12802838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Caveats in the proficient preparation of an APA-style research manuscript for publication.
    Cash TF
    Body Image; 2009 Jan; 6(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 19059816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. [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]  

  • 20. Avoiding the question approach: making direct comments in manuscript reviews.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 1995; 5(3):7-10. PubMed ID: 7613564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.