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 *

112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22958760)

  • 1. Peer2ref: a peer-reviewer finding web tool that uses author disambiguation.
    Andrade-Navarro MA; Palidwor GA; Perez-Iratxeta C
    BioData Min; 2012 Sep; 5(1):14. PubMed ID: 22958760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
    Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
    Glonti K; Cauchi D; Cobo E; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMC Med; 2019 Jun; 17(1):118. PubMed ID: 31217033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.
    Osborne SR; Alston LV; Bolton KA; Whelan J; Reeve E; Wong Shee A; Browne J; Walker T; Versace VL; Allender S; Nichols M; Backholer K; Goodwin N; Lewis S; Dalton H; Prael G; Curtin M; Brooks R; Verdon S; Crockett J; Hodgins G; Walsh S; Lyle DM; Thompson SC; Browne LJ; Knight S; Pit SW; Jones M; Gillam MH; Leach MJ; Gonzalez-Chica DA; Muyambi K; Eshetie T; Tran K; May E; Lieschke G; Parker V; Smith A; Hayes C; Dunlop AJ; Rajappa H; White R; Oakley P; Holliday S
    Med J Aust; 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11():S3-S32.e1. PubMed ID: 33314144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.
    Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2010 Oct; 5(10):e13345. PubMed ID: 20976226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.
    Hausmann L; Schweitzer B; Middleton FA; Schulz JB
    J Neurochem; 2018 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 29377133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.
    Moore JL; Neilson EG; Siegel V;
    J Am Soc Nephrol; 2011 Sep; 22(9):1598-602. PubMed ID: 21852583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review for the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in 2016 and 2017: a retrospective analysis by reviewer and author gender.
    Goldstone K; Edgley C; Mehta S; Leslie K
    Can J Anaesth; 2020 Mar; 67(3):336-342. PubMed ID: 31741300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
    Cleary JD; Alexander B
    Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.