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 *

158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22972278)

  • 21. Row erupts over university's use of research metrics in job-cut decisions.
    Else H
    Nature; 2021 Apr; 592(7852):19. PubMed ID: 33767466
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
    List A
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
    Törnqvist TE
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
    Korngreen A
    Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. It's difficult to publish contradictory findings.
    DeCoursey TE
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482132
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Standards for papers on cloning.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
    Garvalov BK
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 29. Predicting scientific success.
    Mallapaty S
    Nature; 2018 Sep; 561(7723):S32-S33. PubMed ID: 30232443
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Who would you share your funding with?
    Bollen J
    Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Supporting the future.
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):958. PubMed ID: 18563096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 36. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
    Lahiri DK
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The association between four citation metrics and peer rankings of research influence of Australian researchers in six fields of public health.
    Derrick GE; Haynes A; Chapman S; Hall WD
    PLoS One; 2011 Apr; 6(4):e18521. PubMed ID: 21494691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Point/Counterpoint. The future h-index is an excellent way to predict scientists' future impact.
    Acuna DE; Penner O; Orton CG
    Med Phys; 2013 Nov; 40(11):110601. PubMed ID: 24320407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. What's next for Registered Reports?
    Chambers C
    Nature; 2019 Sep; 573(7773):187-189. PubMed ID: 31506624
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.