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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24875588)

  • 1. Errors in science: the role of reviewers.
    Székely T; Krüger O; Krause ET
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2014 Jul; 29(7):371-3. PubMed ID: 24875588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [The "peer-review" process in biomedical journals: characteristics of "Elite" reviewers].
    Alfonso F
    Neurologia; 2010; 25(9):521-9. PubMed ID: 21093700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. ERJ peer reviewers: does this pillar of the Journal's quality need help?
    Migliori GB; Soriano JB; Brusasco V; Dinh-Xuan AT
    Eur Respir J; 2011 Aug; 38(2):251-2. PubMed ID: 22741165
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review.
    Stehbens WE
    Med Hypotheses; 1999 Jan; 52(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 10342668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?
    Ferreira C; Bastille-Rousseau G; Bennett AM; Ellington EH; Terwissen C; Austin C; Borlestean A; Boudreau MR; Chan K; Forsythe A; Hossie TJ; Landolt K; Longhi J; Otis JA; Peers MJ; Rae J; Seguin J; Watt C; Wehtje M; Murray DL
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2016 Aug; 91(3):597-610. PubMed ID: 25865035
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [A critical review of the "peer review" process].
    Alfonso F
    Arch Cardiol Mex; 2010; 80(4):272-82. PubMed ID: 21169092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How do peer reviewers of journal articles perform? Evaluating the reviewers with a sham paper.
    Kumar PD
    J Assoc Physicians India; 1999 Feb; 47(2):198-200. PubMed ID: 10999090
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'.
    Charlton BG
    Med Hypotheses; 2004; 63(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 15236772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Shared responsibility in expert review of original articles].
    Shashok K
    Rev Neurol; 1997 Dec; 25(148):1946-50. PubMed ID: 9528039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review of medical practices: missed opportunities to learn.
    Kadar N
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):596-601. PubMed ID: 25151185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Training and experience of peer reviewers: is being a "good reviewer" a persistent quality?
    García-Doval I
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e144; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388682
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Perfecting peer review?
    Nat Med; 2011 Jan; 17(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21217648
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
    Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
    Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider.
    Kulstad E
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [From the Cochrane Library: the use of peer review is still under discussion].
    Stijntjes F; Veeken H
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Apr; 152(16):934-7. PubMed ID: 18561790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Tolerance in a rigorous science.
    Shimp CP
    J Exp Anal Behav; 1999 Mar; 71(2):284-8. PubMed ID: 10220935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.