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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16955548)

  • 1. Readers' response to "so what is a sham peer review?".
    Kramer SN
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):83; author reply 82. PubMed ID: 16955548
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Readers' response to "so what is a sham peer review?".
    Gluckmann ET
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):83; author reply 82. PubMed ID: 16955549
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Readers' response to "so what is a sham peer review?".
    Blumsohn A
    MedGenMed; 2006 Mar; 8(1):83; author reply 82. PubMed ID: 16915213
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review".
    Huntoon LR
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16967526
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review".
    McDonnell MF
    MedGenMed; 2006 Feb; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16915164
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review".
    Majerus J
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16967528
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Readers' responses to the letter by Chalifoux and the editorial by Bond in regard to "sham peer review".
    Wright J
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):34; author reply 33. PubMed ID: 16967527
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Misconduct in medical-scientific publications].
    Manschot WA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1995 Jan; 139(2):98. PubMed ID: 7838231
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Scientific blues.
    Nat Immunol; 2006 Jan; 7(1):1. PubMed ID: 16357846
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Is peer review in crisis?
    Mulligan A
    Oral Oncol; 2005 Feb; 41(2):135-41. PubMed ID: 15695114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Investigating allegations of research misconduct. It is time to learn the lessons from Stoke.
    Hall D
    BMJ; 2000 Nov; 321(7272):1346-7; author reply 1348-9. PubMed ID: 11090526
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. So what is a sham peer review?
    Chalifoux R
    MedGenMed; 2005 Nov; 7(4):47; discussion 48. PubMed ID: 16614669
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The ups and downs of peer review.
    Benos DJ; Bashari E; Chaves JM; Gaggar A; Kapoor N; LaFrance M; Mans R; Mayhew D; McGowan S; Polter A; Qadri Y; Sarfare S; Schultz K; Splittgerber R; Stephenson J; Tower C; Walton RG; Zotov A
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2007 Jun; 31(2):145-52. PubMed ID: 17562902
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The limits and power of peer review.
    Hammerschmidt DE; Franklin M
    Minn Med; 2006 Jun; 89(6):43-5. PubMed ID: 16846184
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [From the Cochrane Library: the use of peer review is still under discussion].
    Stijntjes F; Veeken H
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Apr; 152(16):934-7. PubMed ID: 18561790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Sham peer review: perversions of a powerful process.
    Pfifferling JH; Meyer DN; Wang CJ
    Physician Exec; 2008; 34(5):24-9. PubMed ID: 19456073
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Manuscript review in family medicine.
    Worthington RC; Jones JG
    Fam Med; 1993 Jun; 25(6):359. PubMed ID: 8349050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Current concerns of the consultant dietitian. IV. A dietetic association's Peer Review Committee.
    Winterfeldt E
    J Am Diet Assoc; 1973 Jul; 63(1):47-8. PubMed ID: 4710353
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Peer review: the success of headache depends on us!
    Taylor FR
    Headache; 2009 Apr; 49 Suppl 2():S66-9. PubMed ID: 19356163
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.