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 *

230 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14562076)

  • 61. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
    Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Peer review-Beyond the call of duty?
    Griffiths P; Baveye PC
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2011 Jan; 48(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 20096840
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. A reprogramming rush.
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7186):388. PubMed ID: 18368078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Swift publication would reward good reviewers.
    Koonin EV
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6930):374. PubMed ID: 12660754
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Academics are teachers and colleagues too.
    Greif KF
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6918):13. PubMed ID: 12511927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Paranoid about peer review?
    Rumjanek FD
    Nature; 1996 Dec; 384(6609):509. PubMed ID: 8955262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Should journals police scientific fraud?
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):520-1. PubMed ID: 16452946
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Integrity of the peer review process.
    Smith ER
    Can J Cardiol; 2000 Jun; 16(6):814. PubMed ID: 10863172
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Funding: the research revolution.
    Brumfiel G
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):975-6. PubMed ID: 18563124
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Researchers may be part of the problem in predatory publishing.
    Vogel L
    CMAJ; 2017 Oct; 189(42):E1324-E1325. PubMed ID: 29061862
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Future impact: Predicting scientific success.
    Acuna DE; Allesina S; Kording KP
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):201-2. PubMed ID: 22972278
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Recognition: Build a reputation.
    Woolston C
    Nature; 2015 May; 521(7550):113-5. PubMed ID: 25961086
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Ensuring the quality of peer-review process.
    Afifi M
    Saudi Med J; 2006 Aug; 27(8):1253. PubMed ID: 16883466
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Key discoveries often originate with lone researchers.
    Green SJ; Brendsel J
    Nature; 2008 Nov; 456(7220):315. PubMed ID: 19020595
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Copied citations give impact factors a boost.
    Clarke T
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6938):373. PubMed ID: 12761513
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation.
    Falagas ME; Alexiou VG
    Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz); 2008; 56(4):223-6. PubMed ID: 18661263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Experts plan to reclaim the web for pop science.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):516-7. PubMed ID: 16452941
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations.
    Singh Chawla D
    Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):174. PubMed ID: 31506633
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. The making of ENCODE: Lessons for big-data projects.
    Birney E
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7414):49-51. PubMed ID: 22955613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.