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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16338483)

  • 21. Who will appraise the appraisers?--The paper, the instrument and the user.
    Booth A
    Health Info Libr J; 2007 Mar; 24(1):72-6. PubMed ID: 17331148
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. To mask or not-to-mask.
    Lawson EE
    J Perinatol; 2001 Jun; 21(4):213-4. PubMed ID: 11533836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
    Döring TF
    Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Reviewing a reviewer.
    Fokin AA
    Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2009 Mar; 35(3):383-4. PubMed ID: 19196519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Entire-paper plagiarism caught by software.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2008 Oct; 455(7214):715. PubMed ID: 18843325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Letter of apology. Cerebral ischemia and reperfusion: the pathophysiologic concept as a basis for clinical therapy.
    Graf R
    J Cereb Blood Flow Metab; 2005 Mar; 25(3):291. PubMed ID: 15729285
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The manuscript review process.
    Triadafilopoulos G
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Dec; 64(6 Suppl):S23-5. PubMed ID: 17113850
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes.
    Groves T
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c6424. PubMed ID: 21081602
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [The journals must honestly tell who is doing the job].
    Bergström R
    Lakartidningen; 2008 May 7-13; 105(19):1406-7. PubMed ID: 18574981
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Copy is fraudulent--but what is the consequence?].
    Nielsen OH; Schroeder TV
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2006 Nov; 168(45):3891. PubMed ID: 17118247
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Talking back to reviewers: the gentle art of resubmission.
    O'Connell KA
    J Prof Nurs; 2001; 17(6):276. PubMed ID: 11712110
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Rejection.
    Friedman JH
    Med Health R I; 2007 Dec; 90(12):374. PubMed ID: 18314826
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Do the right thing.
    Olshansky E
    J Prof Nurs; 2007; 23(4):185-6. PubMed ID: 17675112
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
    Lahiri DK
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Knowledge on feet of clay].
    Dahlqvist R
    Lakartidningen; 2008 May 7-13; 105(19):1405-6. PubMed ID: 18574980
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Signs of 'citation hacking' flagged in scientific papers.
    Van Noorden R
    Nature; 2020 Aug; 584(7822):508. PubMed ID: 32796929
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A commentary on comments.
    Mohr WK
    Nurs Outlook; 2001; 49(3):119-20. PubMed ID: 11416812
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Trading scientific freedom.
    Nat Med; 2004 Feb; 10(2):107. PubMed ID: 14760395
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.