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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18323432)

  • 1. Rating reviewers.
    Marchionini G
    Science; 2008 Mar; 319(5868):1335-6. PubMed ID: 18323432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
    Tierney AJ
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review. Editorial.
    Kenyon G; Youngs R
    J Laryngol Otol; 2009 Dec; 123(12):1299-300. PubMed ID: 19958561
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer-review: a citadel under siege.
    Apuzzo ML
    Neurosurgery; 2008 Nov; 63(5):821. PubMed ID: 19005370
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [How I review an original scientific paper].
    Hoppin FG
    Rev Mal Respir; 2003 Nov; 20(5 Pt 1):671-8. PubMed ID: 14631245
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The matter of standards. III. The editorial process.
    Wilkins AS
    Bioessays; 2008 Nov; 30(11-12):1037-9. PubMed ID: 18937297
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Measures urgently required to prevent multiple submissions.
    Molaei G
    Nature; 2009 Oct; 461(7265):723. PubMed ID: 19812651
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Rejection: giving it and taking it.
    Taylor D
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2008 Oct; 1(4):275. PubMed ID: 19627792
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review. Suggesting or excluding reviewers can help get your paper published.
    Grimm D
    Science; 2005 Sep; 309(5743):1974. PubMed ID: 16179438
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Are journals doing enough to prevent fraudulent publication?
    CMAJ; 2006 Feb; 174(4):431, 433. PubMed ID: 16477045
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Rewarding reviewers.
    Metz MA
    Science; 2008 Mar; 319(5868):1335. PubMed ID: 18323431
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
    Kennedy MS
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Suggesting reviewers affects outcome?
    Wray KB
    Science; 2005 Nov; 310(5750):971-2. PubMed ID: 16299870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Suggesting reviewers affects outcome?
    Ackerley DF
    Science; 2005 Nov; 310(5750):971-2. PubMed ID: 16284161
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Brain tumor and seizures: pathophysiology and its implications for treatment revisited (Epilepsia 2003; 44:1223-1232).
    Schaller B
    Epilepsia; 2006 Mar; 47(3):661; discussion 661. PubMed ID: 16529640
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers.
    Malay DS
    J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evidence-based medicine and the peer review process: complementary or at odds?
    Fisher CG; Vaccaro AR
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2012 Jan; 37(1):E1-2. PubMed ID: 22179321
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.