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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20096840)

  • 1. Peer review-Beyond the call of duty?
    Griffiths P; Baveye PC
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2011 Jan; 48(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 20096840
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
    Lomnicki A
    Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The introduction of a performance-based system for funding research.
    Smith T
    Nurs Prax N Z; 2006 Mar; 22(1):2-5. PubMed ID: 17205666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
    Waheed AA
    Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Is there gender bias in nursing research?
    Polit DF; Beck CT
    Res Nurs Health; 2008 Oct; 31(5):417-27. PubMed ID: 18324681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
    Törnqvist TE
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.
    Ploegh H
    Nature; 2011 Apr; 472(7344):391. PubMed ID: 21525890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Why are people reluctant to join in open review?
    Liu SV
    Nature; 2007 Jun; 447(7148):1052. PubMed ID: 17597736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Bibliographic citation management software as a tool for building knowledge.
    Steele SE
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2008; 35(5):463-6. PubMed ID: 18794696
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Quality evaluation needs some better quality tools.
    Döring TF
    Nature; 2007 Feb; 445(7129):709. PubMed ID: 17301769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer-reviewed publication output of psychiatric nurses in the Republic of Ireland.
    Higgins A; Farrelly M
    J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2007 Aug; 14(5):495-502. PubMed ID: 17635258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ratings and rankings: judging the evaluation of quality.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2005; 53(5):215-6. PubMed ID: 16226562
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Three cheers for peers.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
    van Loon AJ
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
    Cintas P
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.