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)

  • 41. Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms.
    Bates T; Anić A; Marusić M; Marusić A
    JAMA; 2004 Jul; 292(1):86-8. PubMed ID: 15238595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
    Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
    Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
    Wade D; Tennant A
    Clin Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 18(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 15053119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Editorial policies of pediatric journals: survey of instructions for authors.
    Meerpohl JJ; Wolff RF; Niemeyer CM; Antes G; von Elm E
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2010 Mar; 164(3):268-72. PubMed ID: 20194261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Ethics, economics, and the publication policies of major medical journals.
    Schulman K; Sulmasy DP; Roney D
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):154-6. PubMed ID: 8015131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Improving Publication Quality and Quantity for Acute Care Authors From Low- and Middle-Income Settings.
    Bruijns SR; Banner M; Jacquet GA
    Ann Emerg Med; 2017 Apr; 69(4):462-468. PubMed ID: 27914720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. You're a published author!
    Wachs JE; Williamson G; Moore PV; Roy D; Childre F
    AAOHN J; 2010 Jun; 58(6):233-6. PubMed ID: 20677718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.
    Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2010 Oct; 5(10):e13345. PubMed ID: 20976226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Bonekamp S; Halappa VG; Corona-Villalobos CP; Mensa M; Eng J; Lewin JS; Kamel IR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):1247-55. PubMed ID: 22623536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. 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]  

  • 56. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.
    Claxton LD
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):31-45. PubMed ID: 15652225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
    Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Analysis of submissions, editorial and peer-review process, and outcome of manuscripts submitted to the
    Gupta V; Bhatia R; Pathak M; Ramam M
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2020; 86(5):519-525. PubMed ID: 32167071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
    Rothwell PM; Martyn CN
    Brain; 2000 Sep; 123 ( Pt 9)():1964-9. PubMed ID: 10960059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers.
    Price A; Schroter S; Clarke M; McAneney H
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e021753. PubMed ID: 30249629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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