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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21998887)

  • 1. Rookie review.
    Gewin V
    Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7368):275-7. PubMed ID: 21998887
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Editor's nitpicking.
    Castillo M
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2010 Sep; 31(8):1353-4. PubMed ID: 20203110
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [On rejection of papers submitted for publication].
    Bicas HE
    Arq Bras Oftalmol; 2005; 68(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 16059554
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Any jackass can trash a manuscript, but it takes good scholarship to create one (how MBoC promotes civil and constructive peer review).
    Drubin DG
    Mol Biol Cell; 2011 Mar; 22(5):525-7. PubMed ID: 21357757
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 7. Submitting papers to several journals at once.
    Izunobi JU
    Nature; 2023 Nov; 623(7989):916. PubMed ID: 38017269
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Scientists who don't speak fluent English get little help from journals, study finds.
    Lenharo M
    Nature; 2023 Aug; 620(7976):931. PubMed ID: 37612497
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
    van Loon AJ
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Why and how to avoid a desk-rejection.
    Lake ET
    Res Nurs Health; 2020 Apr; 43(2):141-142. PubMed ID: 32103510
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. "It's déjà vu all over again".
    Greenebaum B
    Bioelectromagnetics; 2003 Dec; 24(8):529-30. PubMed ID: 14603471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 14. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Writing up clinical research: a statistician's view.
    Vickers AJ
    J Gen Intern Med; 2013 Sep; 28(9):1127-9. PubMed ID: 23529711
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Reviewing papers for Medical Physics.
    Hendee WR
    Med Phys; 2008 Apr; 35(4):1619-20. PubMed ID: 18491556
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
    Senturia SD
    IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
    Brookfield J
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.