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 *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23294380)

  • 1. The importance of a peer review journal for Public Health Nursing.
    Abrams SE; Hays JC
    Public Health Nurs; 2013 Jan; 30(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 23294380
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review--the only answer to high-quality research?
    Abdellah FG
    J Prof Nurs; 1990; 6(2):70. PubMed ID: 2362049
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The value of the blind review process: is blindness best?
    Baggs JG
    Res Nurs Health; 1999 Apr; 22(2):93-4. PubMed ID: 10094294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Dear editor: remember me?
    Tanner CA
    J Nurs Educ; 1992 Oct; 31(8):339. PubMed ID: 1335485
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Should we care about quality indicators for nursing journals?
    Cowell JM
    J Sch Nurs; 2012 Aug; 28(4):250-1. PubMed ID: 22815364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Publication ethics.
    Hays JC
    Public Health Nurs; 2009; 26(3):205-6. PubMed ID: 19386055
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Scientific integrity and the journal review process.
    Becker PT
    Res Nurs Health; 1998 Aug; 21(4):283-4. PubMed ID: 9679805
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Perceived journal quality: an indicator of research quality.
    Fahy K; Fenwick J
    Women Birth; 2008 Sep; 21(3):97-8. PubMed ID: 18657498
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mapping the literature of public health and community nursing.
    Alpi KM; Adams MG
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2007 Jan; 95(1):e6-9. PubMed ID: 17252058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer Review: The Science of Nursing Education Depends on It.
    Patterson BJ
    Nurs Educ Perspect; 2015; 36(2):75. PubMed ID: 29194129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Improving your journal article using feedback from peer review.
    Price B
    Nurs Stand; 2014 Sep; 29(4):43-50. PubMed ID: 25249122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A rose by any other name is still a rose: assessing journal quality.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2007; 55(4):163-4. PubMed ID: 17678678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer Review of Scholarly Work.
    Brandon D; McGrath JM
    Adv Neonatal Care; 2018 Dec; 18(6):423-424. PubMed ID: 30499821
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Implications of raising the publication bar in nursing journals.
    Foster RL
    J Spec Pediatr Nurs; 2014 Oct; 19(4):271-3. PubMed ID: 25348359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Garbage in, garbage out.
    Brink PJ
    West J Nurs Res; 1999 Dec; 21(6):725-7. PubMed ID: 11512209
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The development of a ranking tool for refereed journals in which nursing and midwifery researchers publish their work.
    Crookes PA; Reis SL; Jones SC
    Nurse Educ Today; 2010 Jul; 30(5):420-7. PubMed ID: 19906469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.