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 *

155 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21788036)

  • 1. Peer review: "a critique of the critics".
    Andersson KE
    J Urol; 2011 Sep; 186(3):777-8. PubMed ID: 21788036
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Lessons drawn from the critique of the Hissom closure evaluation.
    Fujiura GT
    Ment Retard; 2006 Oct; 44(5):372-5. PubMed ID: 16970520
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Critics blast 'premature' paper on adult stem cells.
    Schiermeier Q; Leeb M
    Nature; 2004 Jun; 429(6992):590. PubMed ID: 15190319
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Paranoid about peer review?
    Rumjanek FD
    Nature; 1996 Dec; 384(6609):509. PubMed ID: 8955262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Integrity of the peer review process.
    Smith ER
    Can J Cardiol; 2000 Jun; 16(6):814. PubMed ID: 10863172
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Ensuring the quality of peer-review process.
    Afifi M
    Saudi Med J; 2006 Aug; 27(8):1253. PubMed ID: 16883466
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Readers' and author's responses to "are traditional peer-reviewed medical articles obsolete?".
    Goldstone RA
    MedGenMed; 2006; 8(1):70; author reply 70. PubMed ID: 16967523
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review.
    Wechsler AS; Fried PW
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2003 Dec; 126(6):1681-2. PubMed ID: 14688670
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Blind faith.
    Steers WD
    J Urol; 2006 Nov; 176(5):1905-6. PubMed ID: 17070206
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Confidentiality.
    Guenin LM
    Science; 1996 Mar; 271(5257):1790. PubMed ID: 8596940
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Next steps in the Schön affair.
    Kennedy D
    Science; 2002 Oct; 298(5593):495. PubMed ID: 12386303
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Too close to call.
    Curfman GD; Drazen JM
    N Engl J Med; 2001 Sep; 345(11):832. PubMed ID: 11556307
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Commentary: monitoring biological data.
    Kritchevsky D
    Account Res; 1990 Oct; 1(2):85-6. PubMed ID: 15991407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Beyond the language barrier.
    Umakantha N
    Nature; 1997 Feb; 385(6619):764. PubMed ID: 9039902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Should reviewers' names be included at the end of journal papers?
    Stensel D
    J Sports Sci; 2005 May; 23(5):447. PubMed ID: 16194992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection?
    Enserink M
    Science; 2001 Sep; 293(5538):2187-8. PubMed ID: 11567115
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 20. The matter of standards. III. The editorial process.
    Wilkins AS
    Bioessays; 2008 Nov; 30(11-12):1037-9. PubMed ID: 18937297
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.