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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18322505)

  • 41. Working double-blind.
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. It's difficult to publish contradictory findings.
    DeCoursey TE
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482132
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
    Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Research funding: Making the cut.
    Powell K
    Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):383-5. PubMed ID: 20864969
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Supporting the future.
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):958. PubMed ID: 18563096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Peer review: Trial by Twitter.
    Mandavilli A
    Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):286-7. PubMed ID: 21248816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Standards for papers on cloning.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 49. Scientific research and the human condition.
    Perez Velazquez JL
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6918):13. PubMed ID: 12511929
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Does double-blind review benefit female authors?
    Webb TJ; O'Hara B; Freckleton RP
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jul; 23(7):351-3; author reply 353-4. PubMed ID: 18450323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 52. What do we know about peer review?
    Wessely S
    Psychol Med; 1996 Sep; 26(5):883-6. PubMed ID: 8878322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk.
    Fenning TM
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6973):393. PubMed ID: 14749800
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Bureaucracy won't change the character of a cheat.
    Bentley P
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782-4. PubMed ID: 16482126
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Peer review: Matchmaker aims to cut journal shopping.
    Kraus RH
    Nature; 2016 Mar; 531(7595):448. PubMed ID: 27008959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Announcement: double-blind peer review.
    Nat Genet; 2015 Mar; 47(3):187. PubMed ID: 25711858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Brain imaging skewed.
    Abbott A
    Nature; 2009 Apr; 458(7242):1087. PubMed ID: 19415822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. A reprogramming rush.
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7186):388. PubMed ID: 18368078
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
    Cintas P
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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