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 *

715 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16287058)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 6. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

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

  • 10. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
    Tierney AJ
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
    Newton DP
    Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. On becoming a peer reviewer for a neuropsychology journal.
    Duff K; O'Bryant SE; Westervelt HJ; Sweet JJ; Reynolds CR; van Gorp WG; Tranel D; McCaffrey RJ
    Arch Clin Neuropsychol; 2009 May; 24(3):201-7. PubMed ID: 19640873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
    Peternelj-Taylor C
    J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Characteristics of peer reviewed clinical medicine journals.
    Eldredge J
    Med Ref Serv Q; 1999; 18(2):13-26. PubMed ID: 10557841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
    Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. On ethical peer review and publication: the importance of professional conduct and communication.
    Spear HJ
    Nurse Author Ed; 2004; 14(4):1-3. PubMed ID: 15551686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 36.