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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18072166)

  • 21. The contemporary landscape of journal publishing.
    McKenna L
    Collegian; 2016; 23(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 27188033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Electronic manuscripts: the periodicals earn money, the referees pay].
    Kelly KB
    Lakartidningen; 2005 Mar 14-20; 102(11):888. PubMed ID: 15835532
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Publishing collaborative studies between academics and industry.
    Sterk PJ; Larsson K; Naeije R; Costabel U
    Eur Respir J; 1997 Nov; 10(11):2441-2. PubMed ID: 9426074
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Why manuscript formatting can reduce you to a whiny 4-year-old.
    Overstreet K
    J Spec Pediatr Nurs; 2010 Jan; 15(1):4-5. PubMed ID: 20074108
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Select Crowd Review: A New, Innovative Review Process for the International Journal of Sports Medicine.
    Int J Sports Med; 2020 Apr; 41(4):207. PubMed ID: 32162292
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [To improve transparency of biomedical publications].
    Watine J; Friedberg B
    Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 2004; 62(1):5-6. PubMed ID: 15047484
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A look inside the Pharos review process.
    Harris ED
    Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Writing for publication--research manuscripts.
    Rosati RJ
    J Healthc Qual; 2008; 30(4):2, 47. PubMed ID: 18680918
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
    Yucha CB
    Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Your role and responsibilities in the manuscript peer review process.
    Brazeau GA; Dipiro JT; Fincham JE; Boucher BA; Tracy TS
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2008 Jun; 72(3):69. PubMed ID: 18698392
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Peering Into Peer Review:
    Provenzale JM; Buch K; Filippi CG; Gaskill-Shipley M; Hacein-Bey L; Soares BP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):45-49. PubMed ID: 31670589
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Ruling out Ingelfinger?
    Horton R
    Lancet; 1996 May; 347(9013):1423-4. PubMed ID: 8676623
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The peer review process III: when the decision is made.
    Riss P
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Jul; 23(7):811-2. PubMed ID: 21901436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Good publication practice in physiology 2017: Current Revisions of the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
    Persson PB
    Acta Physiol (Oxf); 2017 Dec; 221(4):283-284. PubMed ID: 29054123
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. [When the editor makes an error].
    Hem E
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2008 Oct; 128(20):2303. PubMed ID: 19096482
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 37. Predatory journals: Ban predators from the scientific record.
    Beall J
    Nature; 2016 Jun; 534(7607):326. PubMed ID: 27306178
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. CONSORT and beyond.
    Blackstone EH
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):229-32. PubMed ID: 16872939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Standards in the face of uncertainty--peer review is flawed and under-researched, but the best we have.
    Mertens S; Baethge C
    Dtsch Arztebl Int; 2012 Dec; 109(51-52):900-2. PubMed ID: 23372614
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Peer review: is the process broken?
    Berquist TH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Aug; 199(2):243. PubMed ID: 22826383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.