BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17106961)

  • 1. Training peer reviewers.
    Mackey DA
    Nature; 2006 Oct; 443(7113):880. PubMed ID: 17106961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer reviewers need more nurturing.
    Catlow R
    Nature; 2017 Dec; 552(7685):293. PubMed ID: 29293240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review: Close inspection.
    Schiermeier Q
    Nature; 2016 May; 533(7602):279-81. PubMed ID: 27200447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
    Lahiri DK
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
    Guglielmi G
    Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
    List A
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Rookie review.
    Gewin V
    Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7368):275-7. PubMed ID: 21998887
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
    van Loon AJ
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
    Connerade JP
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
    Gibson TA
    Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
    Korngreen A
    Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Making an impact.
    Wu R
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6979):206-7. PubMed ID: 15014507
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Q&A: The global view.
    Dong-Yan J; Cheung F
    Nature; 2015 Apr; 520(7549):S37. PubMed ID: 25924200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
    Lomnicki A
    Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.