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 *

2598 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17894854)

  • 1. What do the JAMA editors say when they discuss manuscripts that they are considering for publication? Developing a schema for classifying the content of editorial discussion.
    Dickersin K; Ssemanda E; Mansell C; Rennie D
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Sep; 7():44. PubMed ID: 17894854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
    Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
    Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Advertising in dermatology journals: journals' and journal editors' policies, practices, and attitudes.
    Bartus CL; Katz KA
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2006 Jul; 55(1):116-22. PubMed ID: 16781302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Science journal editors' views on publication ethics: results of an international survey.
    Wager E; Fiack S; Graf C; Robinson A; Rowlands I
    J Med Ethics; 2009 Jun; 35(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 19482976
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The impact factor and editorial decisions].
    Matías-Guiu J; García-Ramos R
    Neurologia; 2008; 23(6):342-8. PubMed ID: 18597189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication.
    Williams HC
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Jul; 51(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 15243528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [How strict should editors be? Nothing is done for the sake of errors].
    Eklund J
    Lakartidningen; 2004 Dec; 101(51-52):4250. PubMed ID: 15658596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Improving the editing of medical journals and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)].
    Reyes H; Kauffmann R; Andresen M
    Rev Med Chil; 1997 Nov; 125(11):1289-91. PubMed ID: 9609048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
    Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
    J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
    Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals.
    Luty J; Arokiadass SM; Easow JM; Anapreddy JR
    J Med Ethics; 2009 Mar; 35(3):200-2. PubMed ID: 19251974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Report of the editors, 2010].
    García Puig J; Alonso-Vega GG; Blanco JJ
    Rev Clin Esp; 2011 Jan; 211(1):36-45. PubMed ID: 21216398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Freedom of expression and editorial independence: Four firings and a Kafkanian process].
    Gøtzsche PC
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 Apr; 170(18):1537-8. PubMed ID: 18454921
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [The medical literature stands to gain from critical appraisal. Commercialism and non-contextualized results under scrutiny].
    Werkö L
    Lakartidningen; 2002 Dec; 99(51-52):5172-5. PubMed ID: 12572312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 130.