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 *

125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18574300)

  • 41. The new peer review.
    Kohane IS; Altman RB
    Proc AMIA Symp; 2000; ():433-7. PubMed ID: 11079920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Pre-peer review, peer review, and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement.
    Stang A; Poole C; Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Apr; 61(4):309-10. PubMed ID: 18313552
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Why are people reluctant to join in open review?
    Liu SV
    Nature; 2007 Jun; 447(7148):1052. PubMed ID: 17597736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Science in the web age: joint efforts.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2005 Dec; 438(7068):548-9. PubMed ID: 16319855
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Editorial: an age of enlightenment or information overload?
    Davis TR
    J Hand Surg Br; 2004 Dec; 29(6):521-9. PubMed ID: 15542210
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Open-access publishing: where is the value?
    Crawford BD
    Lancet; 2003 Nov; 362(9395):1578-80. PubMed ID: 14615117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Learning to review.
    Freedman R
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Pressure also leads to worthless publications.
    de Carvalho LB
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482133
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Towards a new horizon.
    Mrowietz U
    Arch Dermatol Res; 2008 Jan; 300(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17960401
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Peer review: "a critique of the critics".
    Andersson KE
    J Urol; 2011 Sep; 186(3):777-8. PubMed ID: 21788036
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Paranoid about peer review?
    Rumjanek FD
    Nature; 1996 Dec; 384(6609):509. PubMed ID: 8955262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts.
    Alexandrov AV; Hennerici MG; Norrving B
    Cerebrovasc Dis; 2009; 28(3):243-6. PubMed ID: 19602875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Peer review. The millennium engima: more is less.
    Gordon LH
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2000 Sep; 82(9):1361-2. PubMed ID: 11005535
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access.
    Beall J
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):179. PubMed ID: 22972258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Integrity of the peer review process.
    Smith ER
    Can J Cardiol; 2000 Jun; 16(6):814. PubMed ID: 10863172
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. State of the journal.
    Kline L; Roberts J
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2012 Mar; 32(1):1. PubMed ID: 22330849
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
    Jefferson T; Shashok K
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
    Yucha CB
    Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Your paper has been accepted for publication.
    Munk-Jørgensen P; Christiansen B; Licht RW
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2010 Jan; 121(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 20059451
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.