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 *

319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19892628)

  • 1. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change?
    Mahawar KK; Kejariwal D; Malviya A; Birla R; Viswanath YK
    Asian J Surg; 2009 Oct; 32(4):240-6. PubMed ID: 19892628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
    Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).
    Galipeau J; Moher D; Skidmore B; Campbell C; Hendry P; Cameron DW; Hébert PC; Palepu A
    Syst Rev; 2013 Jun; 2():41. PubMed ID: 23773340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review in hematopoietic cell transplantation: are we doing our fair share?
    Giralt S; Korngold R; Lazarus HM
    Bone Marrow Transplant; 2016 Sep; 51(9):1159-62. PubMed ID: 27159173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals.
    Bordeaux BC; Wiley C; Tandon SD; Horowitz CR; Brown PB; Bass EB
    Prog Community Health Partnersh; 2007; 1(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 20208291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Review article: reporting guidelines in the biomedical literature.
    O'Leary JD; Crawford MW
    Can J Anaesth; 2013 Aug; 60(8):813-21. PubMed ID: 23760791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Getting published in peer-reviewed journals.
    Dimitroulis G
    Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2011 Dec; 40(12):1342-5. PubMed ID: 22142552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
    Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
    Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
    Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Dispersed publication of editorial research.
    Rosenberg J; Pommergaard HC; Vinther S; Burcharth J
    Dan Med J; 2015 Feb; 62(2):. PubMed ID: 25634502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
    Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
    Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde.
    Pierie JP; Walvoort HC; Overbeke AJ
    Lancet; 1996 Nov; 348(9040):1480-3. PubMed ID: 8942777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.
    Nguyen VM; Haddaway NR; Gutowsky LF; Wilson AD; Gallagher AJ; Donaldson MR; Hammerschlag N; Cooke SJ
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(8):e0132557. PubMed ID: 26267491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
    Weng N
    Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts.
    Abby M; Massey MD; Galandiuk S; Polk HC
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):105-7. PubMed ID: 8015116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
    Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J
    Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.