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 *

322 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15853865)

  • 21. The factors considered by editors of plastic surgery journals in evaluating submitted manuscripts.
    Caulfield RH; Maleki-Tabrizi A; Pleat JM; Tyler MP
    Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2008 Mar; 32(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 18058163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?
    Morton JP
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Mar; 33(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 19261753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [The reviewers' review].
    Rabinerson D; Horowitz E; Peled Y
    Harefuah; 2006 Aug; 145(8):587-91, 630. PubMed ID: 16983843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Interrater reliability in assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies using the QUADAS tool. A preliminary assessment.
    Hollingworth W; Medina LS; Lenkinski RE; Shibata DK; Bernal B; Zurakowski D; Comstock B; Jarvik JG
    Acad Radiol; 2006 Jul; 13(7):803-10. PubMed ID: 16777553
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
    Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Tips for writing and publishing an article.
    Nahata MC
    Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Feb; 42(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 18212252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
    Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
    Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Development of a measurement instrument for nursing documentation in the patient record.
    Paans W; Sermeus W; Nieweg R; Van Der Schans C
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2009; 146():297-300. PubMed ID: 19592852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Developing a peer assessment of lecturing instrument: lessons learned.
    Newman LR; Lown BA; Jones RN; Johansson A; Schwartzstein RM
    Acad Med; 2009 Aug; 84(8):1104-10. PubMed ID: 19638781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Case reports: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers.
    Squires BP
    CMAJ; 1989 Sep; 141(5):379-80. PubMed ID: 2766176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [How to write a scientific paper].
    Parati G; Valentini M
    Ital Heart J Suppl; 2005 Apr; 6(4):189-96. PubMed ID: 15902941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Does online submission of manuscripts improve efficiency?
    Govender P; Buckley O; McAuley G; O'Brien J; Torreggiani WC
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):231-4. PubMed ID: 19202995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports.
    Bordage G
    Acad Med; 2001 Sep; 76(9):889-96. PubMed ID: 11553504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
    Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
    Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The inter-rater agreement of retrospective assessments of adverse events does not improve with two reviewers per patient record.
    Zegers M; de Bruijne MC; Wagner C; Groenewegen PP; van der Wal G; de Vet HC
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Jan; 63(1):94-102. PubMed ID: 19473812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper.
    Kumar PD
    J Assoc Physicians India; 1999 Feb; 47(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 10999090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.