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 *

684 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22643022)

  • 41. Changing expectations: Do journals drive methodological changes? Should they?
    Erb HN
    Prev Vet Med; 2010 Dec; 97(3-4):165-74. PubMed ID: 20951447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
    Yankauer A
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1338-40. PubMed ID: 2304210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The bane of publishing a research article in international journals by African researchers, the peer-review process and the contentious issue of predatory journals: a commentary.
    Tarkang EE; Bain LE
    Pan Afr Med J; 2019; 32():119. PubMed ID: 31223409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Peer reviewing e-learning: opportunities, challenges, and solutions.
    Ruiz JG; Candler C; Teasdale TA
    Acad Med; 2007 May; 82(5):503-7. PubMed ID: 17457075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Caveats in the proficient preparation of an APA-style research manuscript for publication.
    Cash TF
    Body Image; 2009 Jan; 6(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 19059816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Richardson ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Navigating manuscript assessment: The new practitioner's guide to primary literature peer review.
    Smith DV; Stokes LB; Marx K; Aitken SL
    J Oncol Pharm Pract; 2019 Jan; 25(1):94-100. PubMed ID: 29498322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. How to "peer review" a medical journal manuscript.
    Salasche SJ
    Dermatol Surg; 1997 Jun; 23(6):423-8. PubMed ID: 9217794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process.
    Weil J
    J Genet Couns; 2004 Jun; 13(3):183-7. PubMed ID: 15617209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Physiotherapists' participation in peer review in New Zealand: implications for the profession.
    Rolland TM; Hocking C; Jones M
    Physiother Res Int; 2010 Jun; 15(2):118-22. PubMed ID: 20310070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.
    Dumenco L; Engle DL; Goodell K; Nagler A; Ovitsh RK; Whicker SA
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 27680319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit.
    Kawczak S; Mustafa S
    BMJ Open; 2020 Nov; 10(11):e039687. PubMed ID: 33234636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications.
    Jacobs A; Wager E
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2005 Feb; 21(2):317-22. PubMed ID: 15802003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Writing for publication in medical education in high impact journals.
    Azer SA; Dupras DM; Azer S
    Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci; 2014 Oct; 18(19):2966-81. PubMed ID: 25339494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).
    Galipeau J; Moher D; Skidmore B; Campbell C; Hendry P; Cameron DW; Hébert PC; Palepu A
    Syst Rev; 2013 Jun; 2():41. PubMed ID: 23773340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 35.