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 *

177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2304222)

  • 21. A personal account of the development of modern biological research in Portugal.
    De Sousa M
    Int J Dev Biol; 2009; 53(8-10):1253-9. PubMed ID: 19757399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider.
    Kulstad E
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Peer review--still the well-functioning quality control and enhancer in scientific research.
    Isohanni M
    Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2005 Sep; 112(3):165-6. PubMed ID: 16095469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The changing face of peer review at the National Institutes of Health.
    Leppert PC
    Fertil Steril; 2004 Feb; 81(2):279-86. PubMed ID: 14967360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Importance of peer-reviewed science in the debates on public policy.
    Scanes CG
    Poult Sci; 2009 Jan; 88(1):1. PubMed ID: 19096049
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The EUFEPS workshop on institutional peer review "The ultimate tool to advance the pharmaceutical sciences?" A continuing story.
    Crommelin DJ; Bjerrum OJ
    Eur J Pharm Sci; 2008 Nov; 35(4):361-4. PubMed ID: 18790717
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. No evidence of sexism in peer review.
    Grant J; Burden S; Breen G
    Nature; 1997 Dec; 390(6659):438. PubMed ID: 9393992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Counterpoint: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Pederson T
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):309-10; discussion 311. PubMed ID: 17267384
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Point: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Kaplan D
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):305-8. PubMed ID: 17267383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
    Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
    Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Peer review in ICU].
    Braun JP; Bause H
    Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2012; 106(8):566-70. PubMed ID: 23084862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Engendering creativity in the biomedical sciences. Innovation can be stifled inadvertently or intentionally. Fortunately there are several ways in which scientists can foster creativity.
    Greener M
    EMBO Rep; 2005 May; 6(5):402-4. PubMed ID: 15864288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. CIHR modifies virtual peer review amidst complaints.
    Webster P
    CMAJ; 2015 Mar; 187(5):E151-2. PubMed ID: 25691789
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 3: review by an advisory board/council.
    Henley C
    Fed Proc; 1977 Sep; 36(10):2335-8. PubMed ID: 892000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Dealing with alleged fraud in medical research.
    Grouse LD
    JAMA; 1982 Oct; 248(13):1637-8. PubMed ID: 7109189
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Extra scrutiny for industry funded trials.
    Rothman KJ; Evans S
    BMJ; 2005 Dec; 331(7529):1350-1. PubMed ID: 16339222
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Pharmaceutical review articles: from good to great.
    Bogner RH; Kleinebudde P; Nail S
    Pharm Dev Technol; 2010; 15(5):439-41. PubMed ID: 20735298
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Closed loop peer review.
    Hill M
    EMBO Rep; 2019 Jan; 20(1):. PubMed ID: 30518624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. What do journal editors want? … and everything you wanted to know about the peer review process for journal publication.
    Muir-Cochrane E
    Nurs Health Sci; 2013 Sep; 15(3):263-4. PubMed ID: 24021114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Malice's wonderland: research funding and peer review.
    Osmond DH
    J Neurobiol; 1983 Mar; 14(2):95-112. PubMed ID: 6842193
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.