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 *

419 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23021414)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Researchers, authors and reviewers: what are our responsibilities?
    Kramer MS
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2012 Jul; 26(4):308-9. PubMed ID: 22686381
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. You're a published author!
    Wachs JE; Williamson G; Moore PV; Roy D; Childre F
    AAOHN J; 2010 Jun; 58(6):233-6. PubMed ID: 20677718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.
    Aly AM
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S18-20. PubMed ID: 14968186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
    Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
    Clark RK
    Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
    Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1415-7. PubMed ID: 12438028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: a study of papers submitted to epidemiology.
    Hall SA; Wilcox AJ
    Epidemiology; 2007 Mar; 18(2):262-5. PubMed ID: 17301708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
    Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Upgrading our instructions for authors.
    Schriger DL; Wears RL; Cooper RJ; Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Apr; 41(4):565-7. PubMed ID: 12658258
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: a primer for novice and seasoned reviewers.
    Lovejoy TI; Revenson TA; France CR
    Ann Behav Med; 2011 Aug; 42(1):1-13. PubMed ID: 21505912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
    Newton DP
    Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Do it right the first time: advice for cornea authors.
    Sugar A; Sugar J; Schwab I; Perry H; de Luise V; Soong HK; Weiss J
    Cornea; 2014 Sep; 33(9):879. PubMed ID: 25062337
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Authorship and co-authorship].
    Haug C
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. Editors and authors: two halves of a whole.
    Borus JF
    Acad Psychiatry; 2014 Apr; 38(2):224-5. PubMed ID: 24477900
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Differences in editorial board reviewer behavior based on gender.
    Wing DA; Benner RS; Petersen R; Newcomb R; Scott JR
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2010 Oct; 19(10):1919-23. PubMed ID: 20831430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.