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 *

832 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16418467)

  • 1. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.
    Williams WA; Garvey KL; Goodman DM; Lauderdale DS; Ross LF
    J Pediatr; 2018 Sep; 200():254-260.e1. PubMed ID: 30029860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
    Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
    Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.
    Moore JL; Neilson EG; Siegel V;
    J Am Soc Nephrol; 2011 Sep; 22(9):1598-602. PubMed ID: 21852583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
    Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
    Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
    Bunner C; Larson EL
    Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 42.