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 *

143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20845127)

  • 1. Kindness, gentility, and rejection: an analysis of 99 manuscript reviews.
    Robinson JD; Agne RR
    Health Commun; 2010 Sep; 25(6-7):504-11. PubMed ID: 20845127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it.
    Dogra S
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2011; 77(2):123-7. PubMed ID: 21393939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Editing the JPH.
    Vetter N
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2007 Sep; 29(3):215-7. PubMed ID: 17715152
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Rejection: giving it and taking it.
    Taylor D
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2008 Oct; 1(4):275. PubMed ID: 19627792
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. International Journal of Legal Medicine's manuscript submission and peer-review system goes electronic!
    Brinkmann B; Pfeiffer H
    Int J Legal Med; 2009 May; 123(3):187. PubMed ID: 19347347
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [The journal's development since the introduction of online manuscript submission and the double blinded peer review of manuscripts].
    Göbel U; Gortner L
    Klin Padiatr; 2010 Jul; 222(4):231-3. PubMed ID: 20665364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A systematic guide to reviewing a manuscript.
    Provenzale JM; Stanley RJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Oct; 185(4):848-54. PubMed ID: 16177399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A look inside the Pharos review process.
    Harris ED
    Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part II. Optimizing the manuscript: practical hints for improving the quality of reviews.
    Levine AM; Heckman JD; Hensinger RN
    Instr Course Lect; 2004; 53():689-97. PubMed ID: 15116659
    [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. Radiology 2016: The Care and Scientific Rigor Used to Process and Evaluate Original Research Manuscripts for Publication.
    Levine D; Kressel HY
    Radiology; 2016 Jan; 278(1):6-10. PubMed ID: 26690988
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reviewing dermatology manuscripts and publications.
    Nelson CA; Freeman SR; Dellavalle RP
    Dermatol Clin; 2009 Apr; 27(2):201-4, viii. PubMed ID: 19254664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Is fear of rejection standing in the way of publication?
    Leggett T; Yates J; Jackowski MB
    Radiol Technol; 2014; 86(2):214-6. PubMed ID: 25391672
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.