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 *

209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26074753)

  • 1. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey.
    Walker R; Rocha da Silva P
    Front Neurosci; 2015; 9():169. PubMed ID: 26074753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.
    Das AK
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2016 Apr; 72(2):172-4. PubMed ID: 27257328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Preprint Servers in Kidney Disease Research: A Rapid Review.
    Vlasschaert C; Giles C; Hiremath S; Lanktree MB
    Clin J Am Soc Nephrol; 2021 Mar; 16(3):479-486. PubMed ID: 32680914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.
    Pöschl U
    Front Comput Neurosci; 2012; 6():33. PubMed ID: 22783183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.
    Walker R; Barros B; Conejo R; Neumann K; Telefont M
    F1000Res; 2015; 4():21. PubMed ID: 26594326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Science peer review for the 21st century: Assessing scientific consensus for decision-making while managing conflict of interests, reviewer and process bias.
    Kirman CR; Simon TW; Hays SM
    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2019 Apr; 103():73-85. PubMed ID: 30634024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.
    Benson PJ
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Oct; 97(7):487-9. PubMed ID: 26414359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Problems with traditional science publishing and finding a wider niche for post-publication peer review.
    Teixeira da Silva JA; Dobránszki J
    Account Res; 2015; 22(1):22-40. PubMed ID: 25275622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.
    Godlee F
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2762-5. PubMed ID: 12038905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.
    Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2015; 18(1):E1-E14. PubMed ID: 25675064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions.
    Hersh WR; Wallace JA; Patterson PK; Shapiro SE; Kraemer DF; Eilers GM; Chan BK; Greenlick MR; Helfand M
    Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ); 2001 Aug; (24 Suppl):1-32. PubMed ID: 11569328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review: from recognition to improved practices.
    Cintas P
    FEMS Microbiol Lett; 2016 Jun; 363(12):. PubMed ID: 27190154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. On the role of review papers in the face of escalating publication rates - a case study of research on contaminants of emerging concern (CECs).
    Oberg G; Leopold A
    Environ Int; 2019 Oct; 131():104960. PubMed ID: 31299604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Day-to-day discovery of preprint-publication links.
    Cabanac G; Oikonomidi T; Boutron I
    Scientometrics; 2021; 126(6):5285-5304. PubMed ID: 33897069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication.
    Kovanis M; Trinquart L; Ravaud P; Porcher R
    Scientometrics; 2017; 113(1):651-671. PubMed ID: 29056795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews.
    Ghosal T; Kumar S; Bharti PK; Ekbal A
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(1):e0259238. PubMed ID: 35085252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.
    Kelly J; Sadeghieh T; Adeli K
    EJIFCC; 2014 Oct; 25(3):227-43. PubMed ID: 27683470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The good and the bad of preprint servers in plant physiology.
    Kronzucker HJ; Qiu QS; Sonnewald U
    J Plant Physiol; 2022 Apr; 271():153661. PubMed ID: 35240511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.