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)

  • 21. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.
    Moore JL; Neilson EG; Siegel V;
    J Am Soc Nephrol; 2011 Sep; 22(9):1598-602. PubMed ID: 21852583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.
    Garmel GM
    Perm J; 2010; 14(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 20740129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Development of a case report review instrument.
    Ramulu VG; Levine RB; Hebert RS; Wright SM
    Int J Clin Pract; 2005 Apr; 59(4):457-61. PubMed ID: 15853865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
    Navalta JW; Lyons TS
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.
    Lamb CR; Adams CA
    Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
    Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The Peer-Review and Editorial System: Ways to Fix Something That Might Be Broken.
    Schwartz SJ; Zamboanga BL
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2009 Jan; 4(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 26158834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.
    Aly AM
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S18-20. PubMed ID: 14968186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.
    Link AM
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):246-7. PubMed ID: 9676670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
    Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
    Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Peer review process in medical journals.
    Cho YG; Park HA
    Korean J Fam Med; 2013 Nov; 34(6):372-6. PubMed ID: 24340158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.
    Lovejoy TI; Revenson TA; France CR
    Ann Behav Med; 2011 Aug; 42(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 21505912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Report of the editors, 2014.
    García Puig J; Gaspar Alonso-Vega G; Ríos Blanco JJ
    Rev Clin Esp (Barc); 2015; 215(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 25441406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.