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)

  • 21. Peer review in journals indexed in Index Medicus.
    Colaianni LA
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):156-8. PubMed ID: 8015132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
    Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.
    Sidalak D; Purdy E; Luckett-Gatopoulos S; Murray H; Thoma B; Chan TM
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):201-204. PubMed ID: 27191842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Bonekamp S; Halappa VG; Corona-Villalobos CP; Mensa M; Eng J; Lewin JS; Kamel IR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):1247-55. PubMed ID: 22623536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Peer review should continue after publication.
    Liesegang TJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2010 Mar; 149(3):359-60. PubMed ID: 20172061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
    Igi R
    J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Ensuring integrity in biomedical publication.
    Woolf PK
    JAMA; 1987 Dec; 258(23):3424-7. PubMed ID: 3682141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Blind peer review: tips for authors, reviewers, and editors.
    Flanagin A
    Nurse Author Ed; 1994; 4(4):1-2. PubMed ID: 7849791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal.
    Garfield JM; Kaye AD; Kolinsky DC; Urman RD
    J Med Pract Manage; 2015; 30(6 Spec No):13-7. PubMed ID: 26062311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
    Liesegang TJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
    Croat Med J; 2003 Dec; 44(6):770-83. PubMed ID: 14725274
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
    Bunner C; Larson EL
    Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.
    Claxton LD
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):31-45. PubMed ID: 15652225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Where to now for health-related journal peer review?
    Lipworth W; Kerridge I
    J Law Med; 2011 Jun; 18(4):724-7. PubMed ID: 21774269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 39. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review.
    Bavdekar SB
    J Assoc Physicians India; 2016 Apr; 64(4):66-69. PubMed ID: 27734643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Standards of practice and uniformity in references style.
    Salvagno GL; Lippi G; Montagnana M; Guidi GC
    Clin Chem Lab Med; 2008; 46(4):437-8. PubMed ID: 18605930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.