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 *

84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16439975)

  • 1. Can peer review police fraud?
    Nat Neurosci; 2006 Feb; 9(2):149. PubMed ID: 16439975
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On cloning research, peer review and the possibility of fraud.
    Carrió I
    Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2006 Mar; 33(3):235-6. PubMed ID: 16477432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Should journals police scientific fraud?
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):520-1. PubMed ID: 16452946
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The importance of peer review.
    Wheeler HL; Wheeler WB
    J Agric Food Chem; 2006 Nov; 54(24):8983. PubMed ID: 17117781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Scams and Scoundrels.
    Perel ML
    Implant Dent; 2016 Oct; 25(5):561. PubMed ID: 27662213
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review: the best of the blemished?
    Alpert JS
    Am J Med; 2007 Apr; 120(4):287-8. PubMed ID: 17398217
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer review and fraud.
    Nature; 2006 Dec; 444(7122):971-2. PubMed ID: 17183274
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Are journals doing enough to prevent fraudulent publication?
    CMAJ; 2006 Feb; 174(4):431, 433. PubMed ID: 16477045
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Demystifying peer review.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2010 May; 12(5):413. PubMed ID: 20442697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Responding to fraud.
    Kennedy D
    Science; 2006 Dec; 314(5804):1353. PubMed ID: 17138870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reference to unpublished comments.
    Bridges B
    J Radiol Prot; 2007 Sep; 27(3):363; author reply 363. PubMed ID: 17972414
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. When the MPU becomes the AMPB.
    Wissow L
    Patient Educ Couns; 2006 Apr; 61(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 16504453
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Guidelines and code of ethics.
    Ghanem AN
    Saudi Med J; 2000 Jul; 21(7):694. PubMed ID: 11500740
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A primer on peer review.
    Foster RL
    J Spec Pediatr Nurs; 2008 Jan; 13(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 18096007
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Fraud: anonymous 'stars' would not dazzle reviewers.
    Bauch H
    Nature; 2006 Mar; 440(7083):408. PubMed ID: 16554778
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Control of research ethics standards by the scientific community is not sufficient].
    Persson A
    Lakartidningen; 2007 Aug 8-21; 104(32-33):2244-7. PubMed ID: 17822203
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Punctual professor using passé procedures.
    Lab Anim (NY); 2006 May; 35(5):17. PubMed ID: 16645608
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Editors and publishing: integrity, trust and faith.
    Freshwater D
    J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2006 Feb; 13(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 16441386
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.