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)

  • 21. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.
    Hausmann L; Schweitzer B; Middleton FA; Schulz JB
    J Neurochem; 2018 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 29377133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
    Black N; van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Smith R; Evans S
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):231-3. PubMed ID: 9676665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
    Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Author perception of peer review: impact of review quality and acceptance on satisfaction.
    Weber EJ; Katz PP; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2790-3. PubMed ID: 12038913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Effects of differences between peer reviewers suggested by authors and by editors.
    Cummings P
    JAMA; 2006 Sep; 296(10):1231; author reply 1231-2. PubMed ID: 16968843
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
    Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.
    Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R
    Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
    Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The role of editors, reviewers and authors in improving the journal quality.
    Bugiardini R
    J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown); 2011 Jan; 12(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21263233
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
    Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
    Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Getting published well requires fulfilling editors' and reviewers' needs and desires.
    Schoenwolf GC
    Dev Growth Differ; 2013 Dec; 55(9):735-43. PubMed ID: 24131034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
    Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
    Igi R
    J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.
    Aly AM
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S18-20. PubMed ID: 14968186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 42.