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 *

583 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17183008)

  • 21. What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective.
    Savulescu J; Viens AM
    J Med Ethics; 2005 Oct; 31(10):591-7. PubMed ID: 16199602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.
    Wicherts JM
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(1):e0147913. PubMed ID: 26824759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Ethical and quasi-ethical issues in medical editing and publishing.
    Pitkin RM
    Croat Med J; 1998 Jun; 39(2):95-101. PubMed ID: 9575262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
    Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
    Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [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. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
    Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Ethical concerns of nursing reviewers: an international survey.
    Broome M; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG
    Nurs Ethics; 2010 Nov; 17(6):741-8. PubMed ID: 21097972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [The Editorial Advisory Committee].
    Reyes H
    Rev Med Chil; 1996 Dec; 124(12):1421-2. PubMed ID: 9334474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 30.