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 *

275 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24228975)

  • 1. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review.
    Onitilo AA; Engel JM; Salzman-Scott SA; Stankowski RV; Doi SA
    Account Res; 2014; 21(2):109-21. PubMed ID: 24228975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability of reviewer ratings in the manuscript peer review process: an opportunity for improvement.
    Onitilo AA; Engel JM; Salzman-Scott SA; Stankowski RV; Doi SA
    Account Res; 2013; 20(4):270-84. PubMed ID: 23805832
    [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. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
    Hughes TJ
    Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review.
    Doi SA; Salzman-Scott SA; Onitilo AA
    Account Res; 2016; 23(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 26192007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A systematic guide for peer reviewers for a medical journal.
    Garfield JM; Kaye AD; Kolinsky DC; Urman RD
    J Med Pract Manage; 2015; 30(6 Spec No):13-7. PubMed ID: 26062311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.
    Bayne SC; McGivney GP; Mazer SC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):201-18. PubMed ID: 12616242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.
    Husereau D; Drummond M; Petrou S; Carswell C; Moher D; Greenberg D; Augustovski F; Briggs AH; Mauskopf J; Loder E;
    Value Health; 2013; 16(2):231-50. PubMed ID: 23538175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
    Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) consensus on science with treatment recommendations for pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric basic and advanced life support.
    International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
    Pediatrics; 2006 May; 117(5):e955-77. PubMed ID: 16618790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
    Navalta JW; Lyons TS
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
    Tite L; Schroter S
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Avoiding the question approach: making direct comments in manuscript reviews.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 1995; 5(3):7-10. PubMed ID: 7613564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Caveats in the proficient preparation of an APA-style research manuscript for publication.
    Cash TF
    Body Image; 2009 Jan; 6(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 19059816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.