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 *

149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17106961)

  • 21. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
    Garvalov BK
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Who would you share your funding with?
    Bollen J
    Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
    Brookfield J
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
    Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. It's difficult to publish contradictory findings.
    DeCoursey TE
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482132
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Supporting the future.
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):958. PubMed ID: 18563096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Research funding: Making the cut.
    Powell K
    Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):383-5. PubMed ID: 20864969
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Three cheers for peers.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Improving science through online commentary.
    Eagleman DM; Holcombe AO
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6935):15. PubMed ID: 12721598
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Standards for papers on cloning.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
    Waheed AA
    Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. What's next for Registered Reports?
    Chambers C
    Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Peer review: Trial by Twitter.
    Mandavilli A
    Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):286-7. PubMed ID: 21248816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Swift publication would reward good reviewers.
    Koonin EV
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6930):374. PubMed ID: 12660754
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data.
    Nicholson JK
    Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Future impact: Predicting scientific success.
    Acuna DE; Allesina S; Kording KP
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):201-2. PubMed ID: 22972278
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Research methods: Know when your numbers are significant.
    Vaux DL
    Nature; 2012 Dec; 492(7428):180-1. PubMed ID: 23235861
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.