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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18322505)

  • 21. Peer review: Close inspection.
    Schiermeier Q
    Nature; 2016 May; 533(7602):279-81. PubMed ID: 27200447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
    Gibson TA
    Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
    Connerade JP
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Training peer reviewers.
    Mackey DA
    Nature; 2006 Oct; 443(7113):880. PubMed ID: 17106961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Q&A: The global view.
    Dong-Yan J; Cheung F
    Nature; 2015 Apr; 520(7549):S37. PubMed ID: 25924200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
    Lomnicki A
    Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 29. Peer reviewers need more nurturing.
    Catlow R
    Nature; 2017 Dec; 552(7685):293. PubMed ID: 29293240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
    Törnqvist TE
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors.
    Colquhoun D
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.
    Okike K; Hug KT; Kocher MS; Leopold SS
    JAMA; 2016 Sep; 316(12):1315-6. PubMed ID: 27673310
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. China cracks down on fake peer reviews.
    Cyranoski D
    Nature; 2017 Jun; 546(7659):464. PubMed ID: 28640278
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
    Lahiri DK
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Editors are meant to be judges, not postmen.
    Michell B
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479-80; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774094
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Q&A Jane Harding: individual approach.
    Harding J; Mallapaty S
    Nature; 2014 Jul; 511(7510):S82-3. PubMed ID: 25054858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Peer review.
    Twaij H; Oussedik S; Hoffmeyer P
    Bone Joint J; 2014 Apr; 96-B(4):436-41. PubMed ID: 24692607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.