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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22536180)

  • 1. Letting the daylight in: Reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science.
    Wicherts JM; Kievit RA; Bakker M; Borsboom D
    Front Comput Neurosci; 2012; 6():20. PubMed ID: 22536180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers.
    Boerckel JD; Plotkin LI; Sims NA
    J Bone Miner Res; 2021 Jul; 36(7):1220-1224. PubMed ID: 33900654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.
    Kriegeskorte N
    Front Comput Neurosci; 2012; 6():79. PubMed ID: 23087639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
    Prager EM; Chambers KE; Plotkin JL; McArthur DL; Bandrowski AE; Bansal N; Martone ME; Bergstrom HC; Bespalov A; Graf C
    Cancer Rep (Hoboken); 2019 Feb; 2(1):e1150. PubMed ID: 32721132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
    Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J
    Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic publishing.
    Prager EM; Chambers KE; Plotkin JL; McArthur DL; Bandrowski AE; Bansal N; Martone ME; Bergstrom HC; Bespalov A; Graf C
    J Neurosci Res; 2019 Apr; 97(4):377-390. PubMed ID: 30506706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
    Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
    Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Ensuring Quality and Status: Peer Review Practices in Kriterium, A Portal for Quality-Marked Monographs and Edited Volumes in Swedish SSH.
    Hammarfelt B; Hammar I; Francke H
    Front Res Metr Anal; 2021; 6():740297. PubMed ID: 34778695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.
    Jolly PD
    N Z Vet J; 2003 Aug; 51(4):199. PubMed ID: 16032326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On the role of review papers in the face of escalating publication rates - a case study of research on contaminants of emerging concern (CECs).
    Oberg G; Leopold A
    Environ Int; 2019 Oct; 131():104960. PubMed ID: 31299604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review.
    Hamilton DG; Fraser H; Hoekstra R; Fidler F
    Elife; 2020 Nov; 9():. PubMed ID: 33211009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.
    Almquist M; von Allmen RS; Carradice D; Oosterling SJ; McFarlane K; Wijnhoven B
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0179031. PubMed ID: 28662046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.
    Das AK
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2016 Apr; 72(2):172-4. PubMed ID: 27257328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.
    Gasparyan AY; Gerasimov AN; Voronov AA; Kitas GD
    J Korean Med Sci; 2015 Apr; 30(4):360-4. PubMed ID: 25829801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Journal publication ethics and implications for life science researchers: a COPE perspective.
    Lane T
    Emerg Top Life Sci; 2018 Dec; 2(6):763-767. PubMed ID: 33530669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.
    Benson PJ
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Oct; 97(7):487-9. PubMed ID: 26414359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.
    Yarris LM; Gottlieb M; Scott K; Sampson C; Rose E; Chan TM; Ilgen J
    West J Emerg Med; 2017 Jun; 18(4):721-728. PubMed ID: 28611894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.