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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24064636)

  • 1. Rejection of a manuscript.
    Kapil A
    Indian J Med Microbiol; 2013; 31(4):329-30. PubMed ID: 24064636
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Poor title--poor manuscript?
    Gjersvik P; Gulbrandsen P; Aasheim ET; Nylenna M
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2013 Dec; 133(23-24):2475-7. PubMed ID: 24326496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Outcomes of rejected Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology manuscripts.
    Silberzweig JE; Khorsandi AS
    J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2008 Nov; 19(11):1620-3. PubMed ID: 18693043
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Rejection of a manuscript: the other side of the story.
    Patnayak R; Jena A
    Indian J Med Microbiol; 2014; 32(3):350-1. PubMed ID: 25008841
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Release of research results to the public].
    Rosenberg J
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2009 Nov; 171(47):3419. PubMed ID: 19925724
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [To find out or to think of--the little difference].
    Haug C
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Jan; 126(3):293. PubMed ID: 16440029
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Rejection: giving it and taking it.
    Taylor D
    J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2008 Oct; 1(4):275. PubMed ID: 19627792
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [From a manuscript to an article in Tidsskriftet].
    Ringnes A
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Jan; 126(1):18-9. PubMed ID: 16397648
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Research methods - most common reason for rejection.
    Aust N Z J Public Health; 2010 Feb; 34(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 20920097
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [From paper to Internet-based manuscript submission].
    Schroeder TV; Kitaj T
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2005 Jan; 167(1):25. PubMed ID: 15675159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Instructions for original radiological research manuscripts].
    Bannas P; Adam G; Bley TA
    Rofo; 2013 Jun; 185(6):533-8. PubMed ID: 23494505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Tips for manuscript reviewers.
    Davidhizar R; Bechtel GA
    Nurse Author Ed; 2003; 13(3):1-4. PubMed ID: 12841086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Electronic manuscripts: the periodicals earn money, the referees pay].
    Kelly KB
    Lakartidningen; 2005 Mar 14-20; 102(11):888. PubMed ID: 15835532
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. After the critique: revise and resubmit your manuscript.
    Valente S
    Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(3):1-3. PubMed ID: 16189960
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Online submission of manuscripts for "The Orthopedist."].
    Orthopade; 2012 Oct; 41(10):799. PubMed ID: 23052845
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The peer review process III: when the decision is made.
    Riss P
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Jul; 23(7):811-2. PubMed ID: 21901436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Why your manuscript was rejected and how to prevent it.
    Dogra S
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2011; 77(2):123-7. PubMed ID: 21393939
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Peer review of scientific manuscripts should be open and referees' bias should be accounted for].
    Thörn A
    Lakartidningen; 2004 Oct; 101(44):3458. PubMed ID: 15560663
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review: is the process broken?
    Berquist TH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Aug; 199(2):243. PubMed ID: 22826383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.