BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21901437)

  • 1. The peer review process II: to review and be reviewed.
    Riss P
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 May; 23(5):513-4. PubMed ID: 21901437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
    Manske PR
    J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Peer review and refereeing in science.
    Lore W
    East Afr Med J; 1995 May; 72(5):335-7. PubMed ID: 7555893
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside.
    Fisher RS; Powers LE
    Epilepsia; 2004 Aug; 45(8):889-94. PubMed ID: 15270753
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
    Davies J
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

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

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

  • 11. Learning to review.
    Freedman R
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. We are delighted to have received 273 replies from reviewers specifying their subspecialty interests. Introduction.
    Frank JD; Mouriquand P; Caldamone A; Malone PS
    J Pediatr Urol; 2012 Jun; 8(3):223. PubMed ID: 22583554
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A look inside the Pharos review process.
    Harris ED
    Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Tracking the peer-review process.
    Campion EW; Curfman GD; Drazen JM
    N Engl J Med; 2000 Nov; 343(20):1485-6. PubMed ID: 11078775
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.
    Scarfe WC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Publishing in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Downer M
    Community Dent Health; 2003 Mar; 20(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 12688596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
    Lomnicki A
    Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 20. Manuscript processing 101: problems and solutions.
    DiBartola S; Hinchcliff K
    J Vet Intern Med; 1999; 13(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 10052055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.