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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22972278)

  • 41. Research funding: Making the cut.
    Powell K
    Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):383-5. PubMed ID: 20864969
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Three cheers for peers.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 44. Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark.
    Kwok R
    Nature; 2013 Aug; 500(7463):491-3. PubMed ID: 23977678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Any jackass can trash a manuscript, but it takes good scholarship to create one (how MBoC promotes civil and constructive peer review).
    Drubin DG
    Mol Biol Cell; 2011 Mar; 22(5):525-7. PubMed ID: 21357757
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. More time for research: fund people not projects.
    Ioannidis JP
    Nature; 2011 Sep; 477(7366):529-31. PubMed ID: 21956312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Metrics: include refereeing as part of performance rating.
    Cintas P; Paoletti E
    Nature; 2010 Jul; 466(7303):179. PubMed ID: 20613818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Science policy: Well-funded investigators should receive extra scrutiny.
    Berg JM
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):203. PubMed ID: 22972279
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Making an impact.
    Wu R
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6979):206-7. PubMed ID: 15014507
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. The trouble with replication.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7101):344-7. PubMed ID: 16871184
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Index aims for fair ranking of scientists.
    Ball P
    Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):900. PubMed ID: 16107806
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
    Guglielmi G
    Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. [Research barometer: how is research activity monitored and how is it compared?].
    Djurhuus JC
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Jan; 165(4):322-6. PubMed ID: 12599793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Scientific research and the human condition.
    Perez Velazquez JL
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6918):13. PubMed ID: 12511929
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk.
    Fenning TM
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6973):393. PubMed ID: 14749800
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 57. Reviewers peering from under a pile of 'omics' data.
    Nicholson JK
    Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7087):992. PubMed ID: 16625173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
    Lauer MS; Nakamura R
    N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Ratings games.
    Nature; 2005 Aug; 436(7053):889-90. PubMed ID: 16107794
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Not-so-deep impact.
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7045):1003-4. PubMed ID: 15973362
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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