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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25693523)

  • 1. Nature journals offer double-blind review.
    Nature; 2015 Feb; 518(7539):274. PubMed ID: 25693523
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 3. Why are people reluctant to join in open review?
    Liu SV
    Nature; 2007 Jun; 447(7148):1052. PubMed ID: 17597736
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer reviewers need more nurturing.
    Catlow R
    Nature; 2017 Dec; 552(7685):293. PubMed ID: 29293240
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 8. Submitting papers to several journals at once.
    Izunobi JU
    Nature; 2023 Nov; 623(7989):916. PubMed ID: 38017269
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. When the blind lead the blind: In the pit of peer review.
    Rossdale PD
    Equine Vet J; 2010 May; 42(4):283. PubMed ID: 20525041
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact factors reward and promote excellence.
    Lomnicki A
    Nature; 2003 Jul; 424(6948):487. PubMed ID: 12891329
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Working double-blind.
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
    Davies J
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Swift publication would reward good reviewers.
    Koonin EV
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6930):374. PubMed ID: 12660754
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 15. Peer review-Beyond the call of duty?
    Griffiths P; Baveye PC
    Int J Nurs Stud; 2011 Jan; 48(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 20096840
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Three cheers for peers.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. EURYI: present procedure risks conflicts of interest.
    Lente G
    Nature; 2005 Sep; 437(7056):192. PubMed ID: 16148909
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. H-index and impact factors: assessing the clinical impact of researchers and specialist journals.
    Sebire NJ
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Dec; 32(7):843-5. PubMed ID: 19035541
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
    Lane D
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.