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)

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

  • 22. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. An international survey of nurse editors' roles and practices.
    Freda MC; Kearney M
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2005; 37(1):87-94. PubMed ID: 15813592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Advertising in dermatology journals: journals' and journal editors' policies, practices, and attitudes.
    Bartus CL; Katz KA
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2006 Jul; 55(1):116-22. PubMed ID: 16781302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Peer review of nursing research proposals.
    Lindquist RD; Tracy MF; Treat-Jacobson D
    Am J Crit Care; 1995 Jan; 4(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 7894558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
    Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: an international survey.
    Broome M; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG
    Nurs Ethics; 2010 Nov; 17(6):741-8. PubMed ID: 21097972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.
    Wager E; Fiack S; Graf C; Robinson A; Rowlands I
    J Med Ethics; 2009 Jun; 35(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 19482976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
    Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Development of a case report review instrument.
    Ramulu VG; Levine RB; Hebert RS; Wright SM
    Int J Clin Pract; 2005 Apr; 59(4):457-61. PubMed ID: 15853865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
    Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
    J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 36.