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 *

369 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17205666)

  • 1. The introduction of a performance-based system for funding research.
    Smith T
    Nurs Prax N Z; 2006 Mar; 22(1):2-5. PubMed ID: 17205666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Grant reviews: how to do them well.
    Koop PM
    Can Oncol Nurs J; 1999; 9(2):61-3. PubMed ID: 10703294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 5. A rose by any other name is still a rose: assessing journal quality.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2007; 55(4):163-4. PubMed ID: 17678678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Research Excellence Framework (REF): a major impediment to free and informed debate?
    Nolan M; Ingleton C; Hayter M
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2008 Apr; 45(4):487-8. PubMed ID: 18329454
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):169-70. PubMed ID: 20637926
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Assessing the quality of research: a challenge for nursing.
    Luker K
    Nurs Inq; 2007 Mar; 14(1):1. PubMed ID: 17298602
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Helping nurses avoid some pitfalls on the path to publication.
    Gilmour J; Panapa S; Russell A
    Nurs N Z; 2007 Feb; 13(1):14-5. PubMed ID: 17380702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Do RAEs accurately measure the quality of nursing research?
    Richards D; Watson R
    Nurs Times; 2002 Oct 15-21; 98(42):17. PubMed ID: 12432659
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. German paper chase to end.
    Schiermeier Q
    Nature; 2010 Feb; 463(7284):1009. PubMed ID: 20182483
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Making processes transparent.
    King KM
    Can J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2003; 13(1):31-2. PubMed ID: 12703104
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Writing proposals for research funds.
    Singh MD; Cameron C; Duff D
    Axone; 2005 Mar; 26(3):26-30. PubMed ID: 15835202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
    Peternelj-Taylor C
    J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Writing a feature article: not all articles are alike.
    Pelletier LR
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(4):7-8. PubMed ID: 14562512
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Gaining funding for critical care nursing research.
    McKinley S
    Aust Crit Care; 2003 Nov; 16(4):124-5. PubMed ID: 14692156
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review-Beyond the call of duty?
    Griffiths P; Baveye PC
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2011 Jan; 48(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 20096840
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 19.