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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12855386)

  • 1. Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript.
    Caelleigh AS; Hojat M; Steinecke A; Gonnella JS
    Teach Learn Med; 2003; 15(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 12855386
    [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. 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]  

  • 4. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
    Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
    Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
    Rothwell PM; Martyn CN
    Brain; 2000 Sep; 123 ( Pt 9)():1964-9. PubMed ID: 10960059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

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

  • 14. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reviewer bias: a blinded experimental study.
    Ernst E; Resch KL
    J Lab Clin Med; 1994 Aug; 124(2):178-82. PubMed ID: 8051481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Gender, identities and intersectionality in medical education research.
    Tsouroufli M; Rees CE; Monrouxe LV; Sundaram V
    Med Educ; 2011 Mar; 45(3):213-6. PubMed ID: 21299596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Fate of the peer review process at the ESA: long-term outcome of submitted studies over a 5-year period.
    Raptis DA; Oberkofler CE; Gouma D; Garden OJ; Bismuth H; Lerut T; Clavien PA
    Ann Surg; 2010 Nov; 252(5):715-25. PubMed ID: 21037426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Acknowledging the work of manuscript reviewers.
    Martin SA
    J Pediatr Health Care; 2015; 29(3):217-8. PubMed ID: 25908319
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it.
    Dogra S
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2011; 77(2):123-7. PubMed ID: 21393939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.