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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24180013)

  • 21. Increasing engagement in peer review.
    Keating NL; Mohile SG
    J Geriatr Oncol; 2019 Jul; 10(4):526-527. PubMed ID: 30904491
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
    Cintas P
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Making every scientist a research funder.
    Mervis J
    Science; 2014 Feb; 343(6171):598. PubMed ID: 24503831
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Reviewers' reports should in turn be peer reviewed.
    List A
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7098):26. PubMed ID: 16823432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Rookie review.
    Gewin V
    Nature; 2011 Oct; 478(7368):275-7. PubMed ID: 21998887
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Opening the chamber of peer-review secrets.
    Van Meir EG
    Nature; 2004 Jun; 429(6994):803. PubMed ID: 15215836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
    Altschuler EL
    Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.
    Ploegh H
    Nature; 2011 Apr; 472(7344):391. PubMed ID: 21525890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A cut too far.
    Nature; 2009 Mar; 458(7237):385-6. PubMed ID: 19325579
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
    Garvalov BK
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. NIH head stands firm over plans for open access.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7016):424. PubMed ID: 15565114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. UK funding ban sparks protests.
    Van Noorden R
    Nature; 2009 Mar; 458(7237):391. PubMed ID: 19325593
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Open journals' records to give reviewers their due.
    Fassati A
    Nature; 2007 May; 447(7144):528. PubMed ID: 17538595
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Q&A: The global view.
    Dong-Yan J; Cheung F
    Nature; 2015 Apr; 520(7549):S37. PubMed ID: 25924200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Bureaucracy won't change the character of a cheat.
    Bentley P
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782-4. PubMed ID: 16482126
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Scandals stem from the low priority of peer review.
    Connerade JP
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6971):196. PubMed ID: 14724609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.