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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16554778)

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

  • 2. Commentary: monitoring biological data.
    Kritchevsky D
    Account Res; 1990 Oct; 1(2):85-6. PubMed ID: 15991407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Scientific misconduct.
    Klotz LH
    Can J Urol; 2001 Dec; 8(6):1392. PubMed ID: 11788015
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The peer-review process in medical publishing: a reviewer's perspective.
    Sellke FW
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2003 Dec; 126(6):1683-5. PubMed ID: 14688671
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reflections on scientific fraud.
    Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6906):417. PubMed ID: 12368816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Next steps in the Schön affair.
    Kennedy D
    Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].
    Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
    Lijec Vjesn; 2005; 127(5-6):107-11. PubMed ID: 16281469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Stem cells. ...and how the problems eluded peer reviewers and editors.
    Couzin J
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):23-4. PubMed ID: 16400115
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quality of the scientific literature: all that glitters is not gold.
    Diamandis EP
    Clin Biochem; 2006 Dec; 39(12):1109-11. PubMed ID: 17052701
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Standards for papers on cloning.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fraud inquiry leaves online paper in the ether.
    Brumfiel G
    Nature; 2002 Aug; 418(6901):907. PubMed ID: 12198509
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Addressing scientific fraud.
    Crocker J; Cooper ML
    Science; 2011 Dec; 334(6060):1182. PubMed ID: 22144584
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Error, ignorance and fraud.
    Squires BP
    CMAJ; 1990 Dec; 143(12):1295. PubMed ID: 2253137
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers.
    Malay DS
    J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
    Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
    Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data.
    Nicholson JK
    Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review: phony data, shoddy work or revolutionary results? "Truth will out".
    Friedman JH
    Med Health R I; 2000 Jul; 83(7):198. PubMed ID: 10934817
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Publication ethics.
    Hays JC
    Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Standards for ethical publication.
    Johnson JT; Niparko JK; Levine PA; Kennedy DW; Rudy SF; Weber P; Weber RS; Benninger MS; Rosenfeld RM; Ruben RJ; Smith RJ; Sataloff RT; Weir N
    Am J Otolaryngol; 2007; 28(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17162121
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.