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 *

412 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19258178)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [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. Scientific letters.
    Henly SJ
    Nurs Res; 2008; 57(5):301. PubMed ID: 18794713
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What is your opinion on the "medical ethics of medical journal editors"?
    Phaosavasdi S; Taneepanichskul S; Tannirandorn Y; Thamkhantho M; Prugsapong C; Phupong V; Karnjanapitak A
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2005 Aug; 88(8):1163-4. PubMed ID: 16404851
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Peer review: should we modify our process?
    Berquist TH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Mar; 202(3):463-4. PubMed ID: 24555581
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
    Peternelj-Taylor C
    J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. What's in a review?
    Nat Chem Biol; 2010 Apr; 6(4):245. PubMed ID: 20300090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Rigour and respect: aspects for consideration when undertaking and publishing research.
    Marchant S
    Midwifery; 2010 Jun; 26(3):264-7. PubMed ID: 20466468
    [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. Stewards of the discipline: The role of referees and peer review.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):169-70. PubMed ID: 20637926
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. There's a time to be critical.
    Nature; 2011 May; 473(7347):253. PubMed ID: 21593816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 19. [Selected summaries].
    Müller-Lissner S
    Z Gastroenterol; 2011 Jul; 49(12):1525. PubMed ID: 22139874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Ten simple rules for getting published.
    Bourne PE
    PLoS Comput Biol; 2005 Oct; 1(5):e57. PubMed ID: 16261197
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.