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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21614064)

  • 1. Peer reviews: make them public.
    Mietchen D
    Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Is open peer review the fairest system? No.
    Khan K
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c6425. PubMed ID: 21081603
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2002 May; 417(6885):103. PubMed ID: 12000917
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 5. Post-publication review could aid skills and quality.
    Gibson TA
    Nature; 2007 Jul; 448(7152):408. PubMed ID: 17653166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Is open peer review the fairest system? Yes.
    Groves T
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c6424. PubMed ID: 21081602
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. We need more insight into what's worth paying for.
    Gunn W
    Nature; 2009 Mar; 458(7236):281. PubMed ID: 19295585
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Journal lays bare remarks from peer reviewers.
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7077):642. PubMed ID: 16467803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
    Altschuler EL
    Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Peer review: Troubled from the start.
    Csiszar A
    Nature; 2016 Apr; 532(7599):306-8. PubMed ID: 27111616
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review at National Institutes of Health: small steps forward.
    Johnston SC; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2008 Nov; 64(5):A15-7. PubMed ID: 19067350
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead.
    Gitanjali B
    J Postgrad Med; 2001; 47(3):210-4. PubMed ID: 11832629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 17. Research grants. A radical change in peer review.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2014 Jul; 345(6194):248-9. PubMed ID: 25035465
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peers under pressure.
    Dalton R
    Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):102-4. PubMed ID: 11557944
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Tracker is a boon for innovation in peer review.
    Nature; 2019 Mar; 567(7746):5. PubMed ID: 30837738
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Clarifying press before paper.
    Snow AA; Pilson D
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Jun; 21(6):597-8. PubMed ID: 12776136
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.