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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2053657)

  • 41. A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.
    Suzuki K; Edelson A; Iversen LL; Hausmann L; Schulz JB; Turner AJ
    J Neurochem; 2016 Oct; 139 Suppl 2():17-23. PubMed ID: 27534728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
    Thombs BD; Levis AW; Razykov I; Syamchandra A; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Jan; 78(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 25300537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication.
    Muir-Cochrane E
    Nurs Health Sci; 2013 Sep; 15(3):263-4. PubMed ID: 24021114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Comment: blind peer review of journal articles.
    Shaughnessy AF
    Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988 Dec; 22(12):1006. PubMed ID: 3243172
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Reviewer Blinding in Peer Review: Perspectives From Reviewers at Three Stages of Their Careers.
    Gupta V; Coburn NG; Detsky AS
    Ann Surg; 2020 Jul; 272(1):42-43. PubMed ID: 32482980
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals.
    Weller AC
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1996 Jul; 84(3):359-66. PubMed ID: 8883984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Richardson ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Who is blinded in randomized clinical trials? A study of 200 trials and a survey of authors.
    Haahr MT; Hróbjartsson A
    Clin Trials; 2006; 3(4):360-5. PubMed ID: 17060210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.
    Zhu J; Fung G; Wong WH; Li Z; Xu C
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Aug; 22(4):1073-1094. PubMed ID: 26169697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.
    Walker R; Barros B; Conejo R; Neumann K; Telefont M
    F1000Res; 2015; 4():21. PubMed ID: 26594326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
    Gregory AT; Denniss AR
    Heart Lung Circ; 2019 Aug; 28(8):1148-1153. PubMed ID: 31230792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Problems identified by secondary review of accepted manuscripts.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1369-71. PubMed ID: 2304215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison.
    Shamseer L; Moher D; Maduekwe O; Turner L; Barbour V; Burch R; Clark J; Galipeau J; Roberts J; Shea BJ
    BMC Med; 2017 Mar; 15(1):28. PubMed ID: 28298236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.