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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16915213)

  • 21. [Peer review--is there a better system?].
    Shoenfeld Y; Shemer J; Keren G
    Harefuah; 2006 Aug; 145(8):581-2. PubMed ID: 16983841
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Protecting peer review activities.
    Kelsay E
    J Okla State Med Assoc; 1989 Sep; 82(9):466-9. PubMed ID: 2809814
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Peer review is not censorship.
    Pescovitz H
    Postgrad Med; 1987 Sep; 82(3):33. PubMed ID: 3628122
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Letter: Appraisal of the peer review system.
    Garb S
    Fed Proc; 1974 Apr; 33(4):1030. PubMed ID: 4818239
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Blinding reviewers improves peer review.
    Sly RM
    Ann Allergy; 1990 Oct; 65(4):243. PubMed ID: 2221481
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Peer medical utilization review: conformity or avoidance?
    Mutter CB
    J Fla Med Assoc; 1980 Nov; 67(11):1029-30. PubMed ID: 7005393
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer review: solution oft unsought.
    Hosp Food Nutr Focus; 1986 Sep; 3(1):1, 5, 8. PubMed ID: 10324411
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A $2.2 million lesson in the perils of peer review.
    Carlova J
    Med Econ; 1984 Dec; 61(26):56-61. PubMed ID: 10269480
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The fate of peer review: IFMC or elsewhere?
    Mandsager RL
    J Iowa Med Soc; 1983 Jan; 73(1):15-6. PubMed ID: 6827157
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Funding should recognize the value of peer review.
    Dominiczak MH
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6919):111. PubMed ID: 12520276
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Veterinary pathology and peer review.
    Cantor GH; Caswell JL; Crissman JW; Gillette DM; Gunson DE; Hogenesch H; Kiupel M; Mense MG; Miller MA; Rush LJ; Leger JA; Schoeb TR; Sellers RS; Sills RC; Swayne DE; Thomas HC; Ward JM; Alden CL
    Vet Pathol; 2009 Mar; 46(2):173-5. PubMed ID: 19261628
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. How does peer review work?
    Aaron L
    Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Cultivating peer review.
    Dellavalle RP
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 55(6):1113-5. PubMed ID: 17097410
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. MSMS seeking new legislation to mandate medicaid peer review system.
    Potash EV
    Mich Med; 1980 Nov; 79(32):592. PubMed ID: 7003322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. How good is peer review?
    Relman AS; Angell M
    N Engl J Med; 1989 Sep; 321(12):827-9. PubMed ID: 2770813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Proposing a manuscript peer-review checklist.
    Duchesne S; Jannin P
    Neuroimage; 2008 Feb; 39(4):1783-7. PubMed ID: 18053748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Avoid charges that peer review is malicious.
    Hosp Peer Rev; 2008 Sep; 33(9):123-4. PubMed ID: 18780591
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Scientific misconduct.
    Sundaram M; Rosenthal DI; Hodler J
    Skeletal Radiol; 2007 Mar; 36(3):179. PubMed ID: 17205322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 40. Training of peer reviewers: validation of a 5-point rating scale.
    Callaham M
    PLoS Med; 2007 Apr; 4(4):e166. PubMed ID: 17456001
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.