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 *

245 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24156598)

  • 1. On publication of a manuscript: the author, the reviewer and the editor.
    Tonkin M
    Hand Surg; 2013; 18(3):ix-x. PubMed ID: 24156598
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Peer Review Process, Editorial Decisions, and Manuscript Resubmission: A Reference for Novice Researchers.
    Lusher AD
    J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2015 Sep; 115(9):566-9. PubMed ID: 26322935
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Getting Published: A Primer on Manuscript Writing and the Editorial Process.
    Fisher PG; Goodman DM; Long SS
    J Pediatr; 2017 Jun; 185():241-244. PubMed ID: 28341526
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reviewer development: new initiatives.
    Berquist TH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Jan; 204(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 25539228
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. All the lonely people: by Caveman.
    J Cell Sci; 2004 Aug; 117(Pt 17):3705-6. PubMed ID: 15286170
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [How strict should editors be? Nothing is done for the sake of errors].
    Eklund J
    Lakartidningen; 2004 Dec; 101(51-52):4250. PubMed ID: 15658596
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Radiology 2016: The Care and Scientific Rigor Used to Process and Evaluate Original Research Manuscripts for Publication.
    Levine D; Kressel HY
    Radiology; 2016 Jan; 278(1):6-10. PubMed ID: 26690988
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does "Decision Fatigue" Impact Manuscript Acceptance? An Analysis of Editorial Decisions by the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
    Kwan J; Stein L; Delshad S; Johl S; Park H; Martinez B; Topp L; Spiegel BM
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2016 Nov; 111(11):1511-1512. PubMed ID: 27725653
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Author Modifications of Accepted Manuscripts and Galley Proofs: Sharing of Ideas on the Issue.
    Wiwanitkit V
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):W59. PubMed ID: 27809559
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Simplified submission.
    Bradley-Springer L
    J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care; 2014; 25(4):281-3. PubMed ID: 24923729
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Freedom of expression and editorial independence: Four firings and a Kafkanian process].
    Gøtzsche PC
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 Apr; 170(18):1537-8. PubMed ID: 18454921
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Publication Takes Patience: Revision and Resubmission.
    Wood BD; Haynes KW
    Radiol Technol; 2015; 87(1):114-7. PubMed ID: 26377277
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience.
    Woolley KL; Barron JP
    Chest; 2009 Feb; 135(2):573-577. PubMed ID: 19201723
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
    Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The New ICMJE Recommendations.
    Rosenberg J; Bauchner H; Backus J; De Leeuw P; Drazen J; Frizelle F; Godlee F; Haug C; James A; Laine C; Reyes H; Sahni P; Zhaori G
    Indian J Med Microbiol; 2014; 32(3):219-20. PubMed ID: 25008810
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.