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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18574300)

  • 1. All the sourcing not fit to print: citing electronic material in your article.
    Rice J
    Chest; 2008 Jun; 133(6):1524-1526. PubMed ID: 18574300
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Rewarding reviewers, tracking our authors and selective electronic publication.
    Harris JP
    ANZ J Surg; 2017 Apr; 87(4):217-218. PubMed ID: 28371034
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Publishers soldier on despite electronic bugs.
    Dalton R
    Nature; 2002 Jul; 418(6895):264. PubMed ID: 12124587
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Experts plan to reclaim the web for pop science.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):516-7. PubMed ID: 16452941
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Electronic preprints: what should the BMJ do?
    Delamothe T
    BMJ; 1998 Mar; 316(7134):794-5. PubMed ID: 9565456
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Editorial.
    Weisse T
    Eur J Protistol; 2015 Apr; 51(2):A1-2. PubMed ID: 26008765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Rumors of the Demise of Peer Review are Premature.
    Kravitz RL; Feldman MD
    J Gen Intern Med; 2015 Dec; 30(12):1717-21. PubMed ID: 26407592
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Rich nations are feeding research predators.
    Vogel L
    CMAJ; 2017 Oct; 189(42):E1322-E1323. PubMed ID: 29061861
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Life begins again at age 126!
    Pietrini P; Ghelarducci B
    Arch Ital Biol; 2008 Mar; 146(1):2p preceding 1. PubMed ID: 18666443
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Dangers of over-dependence on peer-reviewed publication.
    Nature; 1999 Oct; 401(6755):727. PubMed ID: 10548083
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Publishing (whatever that means) neuroscience in the new millennium.
    Bloom FE
    Brain Res; 2000 Dec; 886(1-2):1-4. PubMed ID: 11119682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Expanding access to published research: open access and self-archiving.
    Mower A; Youngkin ME
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 28(1):69-71. PubMed ID: 18347463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Researchers may be part of the problem in predatory publishing.
    Vogel L
    CMAJ; 2017 Oct; 189(42):E1324-E1325. PubMed ID: 29061862
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Scholarship: Beyond the paper.
    Priem J
    Nature; 2013 Mar; 495(7442):437-40. PubMed ID: 23538811
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Double-blinded manuscript review: Avoiding peer review bias.
    Santos A; Morris DS; Rattan R; Zakrison T
    J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2021 Jul; 91(1):e39-e42. PubMed ID: 33901050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete?
    Frishauf P
    MedGenMed; 2006 Jan; 8(1):5. PubMed ID: 16915135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Foot print of a paper: accountability in academic publishing.
    Mani H
    Lancet; 2016 Aug; 388(10044):562-3. PubMed ID: 27511782
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Readers' and author's responses to "are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete?".
    Goldstone RA
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):70; author reply 70. PubMed ID: 16967523
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Entire-paper plagiarism caught by software.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2008 Oct; 455(7214):715. PubMed ID: 18843325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review: is it a social process?
    Quintana LM
    World Neurosurg; 2011; 76(1-2):41-2. PubMed ID: 21839939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.