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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18948519)

  • 1. A gradual peer-review process.
    Lev-Yadun S
    Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5901):528. PubMed ID: 18948519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On editorial practice and peer review.
    Shahar E
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2007 Aug; 13(4):699-701. PubMed ID: 17683318
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 4. The tragedy of the reviewer commons.
    Hochberg ME; Chase JM; Gotelli NJ; Hastings A; Naeem S
    Ecol Lett; 2009 Jan; 12(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 19087107
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review of NZMJ articles: issues raised after publication of the viewpoint article on Janet Frame.
    Frizelle FA
    N Z Med J; 2007 Oct; 120(1264):U2788; discussion U2787. PubMed ID: 17972995
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Scientific letters.
    Henly SJ
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(5):301. PubMed ID: 18794713
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. What's your rejection fraction?
    Pearlman AS
    J Am Soc Echocardiogr; 2009 Mar; 22(3):314-5. PubMed ID: 19258178
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Change to Open Peer Commentary format.
    Perlovsky L; Duermeijer C
    Phys Life Rev; 2010 Mar; 7(1):1. PubMed ID: 20374915
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Hitting the bull's eye rather than shooting yourself between the eyes.
    Froman RD
    Res Nurs Health; 2008 Oct; 31(5):399-401. PubMed ID: 18613067
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Responding to peer reviews: pointers that authors don't learn in school.
    Algase DL
    Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2008; 22(4):219-21. PubMed ID: 19093658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 12. PTJ Adopts a new process for review of RCTs.
    Craik RL
    Phys Ther; 2012 May; 92(5):642-3. PubMed ID: 22550307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. ["Invisible hand of a reviewer"--peer review of papers in "Morfologia" journal. Current practice and perspectives].
    Bykov VL
    Morfologiia; 2002; 122(6):7-9. PubMed ID: 12630084
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. PURLS--translating research into reality.
    Ewigman B; Susman J
    J Fam Pract; 2007 Dec; 56(12):981-3. PubMed ID: 18170951
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Announcement: double-blind peer review.
    Nat Immunol; 2015 Apr; 16(4):327. PubMed ID: 25789672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [The editorial process].
    Rosenberg J
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 Nov; 170(48):3933. PubMed ID: 19087728
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Double-blind peer review.
    Nat Chem Biol; 2015 Apr; 11(4):237. PubMed ID: 25785416
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Opening up peer review.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2007 Jan; 9(1):1. PubMed ID: 17199123
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.