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 *

87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16795463)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):137-8. PubMed ID: 8015125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A response to 'measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly' by Drs AJ Wakefield and SM Montgomery and published reviewers' comments.
    Arlett P; Bryan P; Evans S
    Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev; 2001 Mar; 20(1):37-45. PubMed ID: 11395937
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review.
    Bavdekar SB
    J Assoc Physicians India; 2016 Apr; 64(4):66-69. PubMed ID: 27734643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Physician-reviewers' perceptions and judgments about quality of care.
    Weingart SN; Mukamal K; Davis RB; Davies DT; Palmer RH; Cahalane M; Hamel MB; Phillips RS; Iezzoni LI
    Int J Qual Health Care; 2001 Oct; 13(5):357-65. PubMed ID: 11669563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.
    Assendelft WJ; Koes BW; Knipschild PG; Bouter LM
    JAMA; 1995 Dec; 274(24):1942-8. PubMed ID: 8568990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Dealing with returned manuscripts.
    Peh WC; Ng KH
    Singapore Med J; 2009 Nov; 50(11):1050-2; quiz 1053. PubMed ID: 19960157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Reviewing manuscripts: how to be critical without being offensive.
    Williams MA
    Nurse Author Ed; 1993; 3(3):1-3. PubMed ID: 8220618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Facts, paradigms, and anomalies in the acceptance of energy psychology: A rejoinder to McCaslin's (2009) and Pignotti and Thyer's (2009) comments on Feinstein (2008a).
    Feinstein D
    Psychotherapy (Chic); 2009 Jun; 46(2):262-9. PubMed ID: 22122624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
    Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
    Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication.
    Lloyd ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(4):539-43. PubMed ID: 16795738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effects of reviewers' gender on assessments of a gender-related standardized manuscript.
    Caelleigh AS; Hojat M; Steinecke A; Gonnella JS
    Teach Learn Med; 2003; 15(3):163-7. PubMed ID: 12855386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Influence of reviewers' clinical backgrounds on interpretation of confocal laser endomicroscopy findings.
    Kobayashi M; Neumann H; Hino S; Vieth M; Abe S; Nakai Y; Nakajima K; Kiesslich R; Hirooka S; Sumiyama K
    Endoscopy; 2016 Jun; 48(6):521-9. PubMed ID: 26862845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Simulating an integrated critiquing system.
    Kuilboer MM; van der Lei J; de Jongste JC; Overbeek SE; Ponsioen B; van Bemmel JH
    J Am Med Inform Assoc; 1998; 5(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 9524352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. A human autophagy interaction network.
    Klionsky DJ
    Autophagy; 2012 Apr; 8(4):439-41. PubMed ID: 22781101
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.