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)

  • 41. Conflict of interest - serious issue on publication ethics for Indian medical journals.
    Das KK; Vallabha T; Ray J; Murthy PS
    JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc; 2013; 52(190):357-60. PubMed ID: 24362660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers.
    Price A; Schroter S; Clarke M; McAneney H
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e021753. PubMed ID: 30249629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
    Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
    Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Research papers submitted to Australian Family Physician - types and timelines.
    Green R; Del Mar C
    Aust Fam Physician; 2006 May; 35(5):362-4. PubMed ID: 16680221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals.
    Schroter S; Price A; Flemyng E; Demaine A; Elliot J; Harmston RR; Richards T; Staniszewska S; Stephens R
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e023357. PubMed ID: 30185581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Accessibility and transparency of editor conflicts of interest policy instruments in medical journals.
    Smith E; Potvin MJ; Williams-Jones B
    J Med Ethics; 2012 Nov; 38(11):679-84. PubMed ID: 22556312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Decline to Review a Manuscript: Insight and Implications for
    Raniga SB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Apr; 214(4):723-726. PubMed ID: 31967499
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Improving the quality of manuscript reviews: impact of introducing a structured electronic template to submit reviews.
    Rajesh A; Cloud G; Harisinghani MG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jan; 200(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 23255737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review.
    Onitilo AA; Engel JM; Salzman-Scott SA; Stankowski RV; Doi SA
    Account Res; 2014; 21(2):109-21. PubMed ID: 24228975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.
    Callaham ML; Schriger DL
    Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 12192358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. User opinions for the Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound journal differ among demographic groups.
    Jones JC; Lascano JJ
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2018 Nov; 59(6):647-661. PubMed ID: 29998579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
    Regehr G; Bordage G
    Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
    Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions.
    Kumar P; Ravindra A; Wang Y; Belli DC; Heyman MB; Gupta SK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2021 Nov; 73(5):567-571. PubMed ID: 34173794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal.
    Cullen DJ; Macaulay A
    Acad Med; 1992 Dec; 67(12):856-9. PubMed ID: 1457023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Reviewing a Manuscript: Disparity Amongst Peer Reviewers' Priorities from Basic Health Sciences and Clinicians.
    Baig S; Ahmed S; Attique H
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2016 Aug; 26(8):677-80. PubMed ID: 27539762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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