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 *

161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16795738)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019.
    Rivadeneira F; Loder RT; McGuire AC; Chitwood JR; Duffy K; Civitelli R; Kacena MA; Westendorf JJ
    J Bone Miner Res; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2420-2434. PubMed ID: 36063372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions.
    Kumar P; Ravindra A; Wang Y; Belli DC; Heyman MB; Gupta SK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2021 Nov; 73(5):567-571. PubMed ID: 34173794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Suggested reviewers: friends or foes?
    Zupanc GKH
    J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2022 Jul; 208(4):463-466. PubMed ID: 35524786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution.
    Fox CW; Paine CET
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Mar; 9(6):3599-3619. PubMed ID: 30962913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication.
    Happell B
    Nurse Res; 2011; 18(4):23-7. PubMed ID: 21853889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.
    Williams WA; Garvey KL; Goodman DM; Lauderdale DS; Ross LF
    J Pediatr; 2018 Sep; 200():254-260.e1. PubMed ID: 30029860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.