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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25924200)

  • 21. Peer review: Trial by Twitter.
    Mandavilli A
    Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):286-7. PubMed ID: 21248816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. International peer review improved Irish research rankings.
    O'Carroll C
    Nature; 2009 Aug; 460(7258):949. PubMed ID: 19693064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Discourse among referees and editors would help.
    Lahiri DK
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482130
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors.
    Colquhoun D
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):479; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
    Brookfield J
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer review: Close inspection.
    Schiermeier Q
    Nature; 2016 May; 533(7602):279-81. PubMed ID: 27200447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A simple system of checks and balances to cut fraud.
    Yang X; Eggan K; Seidel G; Jaenisch R; Melton D
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482128
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Training peer reviewers.
    Mackey DA
    Nature; 2006 Oct; 443(7113):880. PubMed ID: 17106961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Impact factors aren't top journals' sole attraction.
    Törnqvist TE
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480. PubMed ID: 12774096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Q&A Jane Harding: individual approach.
    Harding J; Mallapaty S
    Nature; 2014 Jul; 511(7510):S82-3. PubMed ID: 25054858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Research funding: Making the cut.
    Powell K
    Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):383-5. PubMed ID: 20864969
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Supporting the future.
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):958. PubMed ID: 18563096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Global research universities. A life outside work.
    Normile D
    Science; 2012 Sep; 337(6099):1164-5. PubMed ID: 22955813
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 38. Standards for papers on cloning.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):243. PubMed ID: 16421524
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

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

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.