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 *

84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19135387)

  • 1. Rantings of an associate editor: a plea to manuscript reviewers.
    Loo JA
    J Am Soc Mass Spectrom; 2009 Apr; 20(4):i-ii. PubMed ID: 19135387
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Avoiding the question approach: making direct comments in manuscript reviews.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 1995; 5(3):7-10. PubMed ID: 7613564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [The Editorial Advisory Committee].
    Reyes H
    Rev Med Chil; 1996 Dec; 124(12):1421-2. PubMed ID: 9334474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Caveats in the proficient preparation of an APA-style research manuscript for publication.
    Cash TF
    Body Image; 2009 Jan; 6(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 19059816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
    Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Suggested statistical standards for NTT manuscripts: notes from two of your reviewers.
    Bookstein FL; Sampson PD
    Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2005; 27(3):407-15. PubMed ID: 15939201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. How to improve your manuscript (or how to increase your chances of manuscript acceptance) advice from an editor.
    Davison AM
    Nephrol Dial Transplant; 1995; 10(7):1103-6. PubMed ID: 7478101
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mastering verb tenses in literature reviews.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 2004; 14(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 14735767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Dealing with conflicting reviewers' comments.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 1996; 6(4):1-3. PubMed ID: 8868722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Duplicate publication, Part 2: A case analysis.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 2002; 12(4):7-8. PubMed ID: 12374002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Authors' Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.
    Chipperfield L; Citrome L; Clark J; David FS; Enck R; Evangelista M; Gonzalez J; Groves T; Magrann J; Mansi B; Miller C; Mooney LA; Murphy A; Shelton J; Walson PD; Weigel A
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2010 Aug; 26(8):1967-82. PubMed ID: 20569069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Guide for peer reviewers of scientific article].
    Marusić M; Sambunjak D; Marusić A
    Lijec Vjesn; 2005; 127(5-6):107-11. PubMed ID: 16281469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Improvement and decision-making process of an article].
    Matías-Guiu J; García Ramos R
    Neurologia; 2009; 24(6):353-8. PubMed ID: 19798600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. How a submitted manuscript is processed.
    Peh WC; Ng KH
    Singapore Med J; 2009 Sep; 50(9):853-5; quiz 856. PubMed ID: 19787169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.