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 *

163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21477574)

  • 1. To publish or perish: how to review a manuscript.
    Winck JC; Fonseca JA; Azevedo LF; Wedzicha JA
    Rev Port Pneumol; 2011; 17(2):96-103. PubMed ID: 21477574
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. It's difficult to publish contradictory findings.
    DeCoursey TE
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482132
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
    Adam D; Knight J
    Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Publish or perish, publish and perish.
    Özcan M
    J Adhes Dent; 2014 Apr; 16(2):103. PubMed ID: 24757704
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The new peer review.
    Kohane IS; Altman RB
    Proc AMIA Symp; 2000; ():433-7. PubMed ID: 11079920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Double-blinded manuscript review: Avoiding peer review bias.
    Santos A; Morris DS; Rattan R; Zakrison T
    J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2021 Jul; 91(1):e39-e42. PubMed ID: 33901050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
    Jefferson T; Shashok K
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Publish or Perish: A Mandate With Negative Collateral Consequences.
    Hasan SS; Ahmadi K
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):140. PubMed ID: 28118247
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review in action: the contribution of referees to advancing reliable knowledge.
    Hanks G
    Palliat Med; 2005 Jul; 19(5):359-70. PubMed ID: 16111059
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
    Yucha CB
    Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Publish or Perish: Five Steps to Navigating a Less Painful Peer Review.
    Lange CA; Hammes SR
    Endocrinology; 2021 Mar; 162(3):. PubMed ID: 33516156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
    List A
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An open letter to WJNR reviewers.
    Brink PJ
    West J Nurs Res; 2003 Apr; 25(3):247-50. PubMed ID: 12705110
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Publish or perish: easier said than done.
    Tintinalli J
    Emerg Med (Fremantle); 2001 Dec; 13(4):407-8. PubMed ID: 11903424
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

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

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

  • 20. Some reflections on peer review.
    Elwood TW
    J Allied Health; 2014; 43(1):1. PubMed ID: 24598893
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.