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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18072166)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. An Exemplary Review.
    Perel ML
    Implant Dent; 2017 Aug; 26(4):485. PubMed ID: 28657985
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. A suggested code of conduct for editors of peer-reviewed journals.
    Glover D
    J Wound Care; 2006 Feb; 15(2):85-6. PubMed ID: 16521599
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Ensuring the quality of peer-review process.
    Afifi M
    Saudi Med J; 2006 Aug; 27(8):1253. PubMed ID: 16883466
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The dangers of advocacy in science.
    Gitzen RA
    Science; 2007 Aug; 317(5839):748. PubMed ID: 17690275
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Manuscript processing 101: problems and solutions.
    DiBartola S; Hinchcliff K
    J Vet Intern Med; 1999; 13(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10052055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Manual Therapy adopts mandatory reporting guidelines for publishing.
    Cook C; Jull G; Moore A
    Man Ther; 2014 Oct; 19(5):365-6. PubMed ID: 25090975
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The novelty bubble.
    Leroux JC
    J Control Release; 2018 May; 278():140-141. PubMed ID: 29604310
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
    Davies J
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Revealing all.
    Lancet Infect Dis; 2003 Mar; 3(3):117. PubMed ID: 12614710
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Collective decisions.
    Booth A
    Health Info Libr J; 2003 Sep; 20(3):185-8. PubMed ID: 12919282
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Peering into peer review.
    Nat Microbiol; 2019 Jul; 4(7):1065. PubMed ID: 31222174
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. [New review of uniformity requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: pay attention to ethics!].
    Pulido M
    Med Clin (Barc); 2004 May; 122(17):661-3. PubMed ID: 15153346
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. [Smoking, counseling, questionnaires and science].
    Beich A
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2002 Feb; 164(6):783-4. PubMed ID: 11851190
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. The fate of rejected manuscripts.
    Colaianni LA
    Am J Med; 2000 Aug; 109(2):162-3. PubMed ID: 10967159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Constants and scientific progress.
    Dzau V; Frank M; Reich M; Austin MJ; Aebersold R; Cowley A; Housman D; Mulligan R; Rosenberg R
    Physiol Genomics; 1999 Nov; 1(3):107. PubMed ID: 11015568
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Cover the eyes of Lady Justice.
    Schmid JA
    EMBO Rep; 2003 Aug; 4(8):734-6. PubMed ID: 12897793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. When should the public be informed of the results of medical research?
    Cates W; Rosenberg Z; Raymond E
    JAMA; 2001 Dec; 286(23):2944-5. PubMed ID: 11743832
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. [How to reward and stimulate the task of reviewing scientific articles?].
    Muccioli C; Campos M; Goldchmit M; Dantas PE; Bechara SJ; Costa VP
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2007; 70(1):5. PubMed ID: 17505710
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.