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 *

218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23658692)

  • 1. Substantial agreement of referee recommendations at a general medical journal--a peer review evaluation at Deutsches Ärzteblatt International.
    Baethge C; Franklin J; Mertens S
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(5):e61401. PubMed ID: 23658692
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
    Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
    Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of Cohen's Kappa and Gwet's AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples.
    Wongpakaran N; Wongpakaran T; Wedding D; Gwet KL
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Apr; 13():61. PubMed ID: 23627889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
    Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
    Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Gwet's AC1 is not a substitute for Cohen's kappa - A comparison of basic properties.
    Vach W; Gerke O
    MethodsX; 2023; 10():102212. PubMed ID: 37234937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.
    Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R
    Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals.
    Malički M; Mehmani B
    PeerJ; 2024; 12():e17514. PubMed ID: 38948202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. High Agreement and High Prevalence: The Paradox of Cohen's Kappa.
    Zec S; Soriani N; Comoretto R; Baldi I
    Open Nurs J; 2017; 11():211-218. PubMed ID: 29238424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
    Thombs BD; Levis AW; Razykov I; Syamchandra A; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Jan; 78(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 25300537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The validity of peer review in a general medicine journal.
    Jackson JL; Srinivasan M; Rea J; Fletcher KE; Kravitz RL
    PLoS One; 2011; 6(7):e22475. PubMed ID: 21799867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of variables that influence agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International.
    Kwon JY; Gonzalez T; Miller C; Cook SP; Briceno J; Velasco BT; Thordarson D
    Foot Ankle Surg; 2020 Jul; 26(5):573-579. PubMed ID: 31416682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Inter-observer agreement between two observers for bovine digital dermatitis identification in New Zealand using digital photographs.
    Yang DA; Laven RA
    N Z Vet J; 2019 May; 67(3):143-147. PubMed ID: 30753789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.