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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21248816)

  • 21. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 23. Who would you share your funding with?
    Bollen J
    Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Standards for papers on cloning.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Transparency showcases strength of peer review.
    Pulverer B
    Nature; 2010 Nov; 468(7320):29-31. PubMed ID: 21048742
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 27. How do impact factors relate to the real world?
    Skórka P
    Nature; 2003 Oct; 425(6959):661. PubMed ID: 14562076
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
    Connerade JP
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
    Korngreen A
    Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Research assessment exercises are necessary - but we need to learn to do them better.
    Nature; 2023 May; 617(7961):437. PubMed ID: 37193816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
    Lauer MS; Nakamura R
    N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
    Lahiri DK
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Altmetrics: Value all research products.
    Piwowar H
    Nature; 2013 Jan; 493(7431):159. PubMed ID: 23302843
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
    Guglielmi G
    Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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