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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21998887)

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

  • 22. Reviewers' Role in Research.
    Zareen N
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2017 Jul; 27(7):456. PubMed ID: 28818174
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Quality articles require peer reviewers as well as authors.
    Mack A
    J Manag Care Pharm; 2005 Mar; 11(2):186. PubMed ID: 15766327
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Writing an effective manuscript review: The 6 "Be's" to success.
    Annesley TM
    Clin Chem; 2013 Jul; 59(7):1028-35. PubMed ID: 23741073
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. How to write a paper: revising your manuscript.
    Su'a B; MacFater WS; Hill AG
    ANZ J Surg; 2017 Mar; 87(3):195-197. PubMed ID: 27905185
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Training peer reviewers.
    Mackey DA
    Nature; 2006 Oct; 443(7113):880. PubMed ID: 17106961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Citation rate unrelated to journals' impact factors.
    Waheed AA
    Nature; 2003 Dec; 426(6966):495. PubMed ID: 14654813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Peer review: Close inspection.
    Schiermeier Q
    Nature; 2016 May; 533(7602):279-81. PubMed ID: 27200447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Where did the scientific method go?
    Noseda M; McLean GR
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 18183010
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Writing a constructive peer review: a young PI perspective.
    Belin D; Karadottir RT
    Eur J Neurosci; 2016 Dec; 44(11):2873-2876. PubMed ID: 27706862
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Response to Where did the scientific method go?
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):29. PubMed ID: 18183012
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. The review process.
    Partridge C
    Physiother Res Int; 2004; 9(3):iv-v. PubMed ID: 15560667
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. How to write a medical paper to get it published in a good journal.
    Lundberg GD
    MedGenMed; 2005 Nov; 7(4):36. PubMed ID: 16614658
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. On peer review.
    Schuklenk U
    Bioethics; 2015 Feb; 29(2):ii-iii. PubMed ID: 25586285
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
    Cintas P
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.