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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20976226)

  • 21. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.
    Hesselberg JO; Dalsbø TK; Stromme H; Svege I; Fretheim A
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2023 Nov; 11(11):MR000056. PubMed ID: 38014743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24.
    Verharen JPH
    Elife; 2023 Nov; 12():. PubMed ID: 37922198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Surviving peer review.
    Weinstein R
    J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019.
    Rivadeneira F; Loder RT; McGuire AC; Chitwood JR; Duffy K; Civitelli R; Kacena MA; Westendorf JJ
    J Bone Miner Res; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2420-2434. PubMed ID: 36063372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
    Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
    Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
    Loonen MP; Hage JJ; Kon M
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2005 Oct; 116(5):1461-72; discussion 1473-5. PubMed ID: 16217496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
    Perlis RH; Kendall-Taylor J; Hart K; Ganguli I; Berlin JA; Bradley SM; Haneuse S; Inouye SK; Jacobs EA; Morris A; Ogedegbe O; Perencevich E; Shulman LN; Trueger NS; Fihn SD; Rivara FP; Flanagin A
    JAMA Netw Open; 2023 Jan; 6(1):e2253296. PubMed ID: 36705922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.
    Williams WA; Garvey KL; Goodman DM; Lauderdale DS; Ross LF
    J Pediatr; 2018 Sep; 200():254-260.e1. PubMed ID: 30029860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE.
    Acuna DE; Teplitskiy M; Evans JA; Kording K
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(12):e0273994. PubMed ID: 36508452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. JACLP Guide for Manuscript Peer Review: How to Perform a Peer Review and How to Be Responsive to Reviewer Comments.
    Oldham MA; Kontos N; Baller E; Cerimele JM
    J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry; 2023; 64(5):468-472. PubMed ID: 36796760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
    Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
    Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.
    Shopovski J; Bolek C; Bolek M
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):709-726. PubMed ID: 31209769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
    Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.