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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26087890)

  • 1. Response to letter Dr Rezaeian: journals should review articles, not protocols.
    Smulders Y
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():249. PubMed ID: 26087890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reducing publication bias in biomedical research: reviewing and registering protocol with a suitable journal.
    Rezaeian M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():248-9. PubMed ID: 26051243
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A two-step manuscript submission process can reduce publication bias.
    Smulders YM
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):946-7. PubMed ID: 23845183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. How does peer review work?
    Aaron L
    Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication.
    Foxe JJ; Bolam P
    Eur J Neurosci; 2017 May; 45(9):1125-1126. PubMed ID: 28186675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review: purpose, process and publication.
    Thistlethwaite J
    Clin Teach; 2012 Aug; 9(4):201-4. PubMed ID: 22783849
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Publication of clinical trials in scientific journals: editorial issues].
    Alfonso F; Segovia J; Heras M; Bermejo J
    Rev Esp Cardiol; 2006 Nov; 59(11):1206-14. PubMed ID: 17697666
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Editors and auditors.
    Rennie D
    JAMA; 1989 May; 261(17):2543-5. PubMed ID: 2704114
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Journals should publish all "null" results and should sparingly publish "positive" results.
    Ioannidis JP
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2006 Jan; 15(1):186. PubMed ID: 16434613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias.
    Chalmers TC; Frank CS; Reitman D
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1392-5. PubMed ID: 2406473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Spine journals: is reviewer agreement on publication recommendations greater than would be expected by chance?
    Weiner BK; Weiner JP; Smith HE
    Spine J; 2010 Mar; 10(3):209-11. PubMed ID: 20207330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review in scientific journals--what good is it?
    Relman AS
    West J Med; 1990 Nov; 153(5):520-2. PubMed ID: 2260288
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals.
    Albert DM; Liesegang TJ; Schachat AP
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 May; 123(5):684-6. PubMed ID: 15883290
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ensuring integrity in biomedical publication.
    Woolf PK
    JAMA; 1987 Dec; 258(23):3424-7. PubMed ID: 3682141
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.
    Suzuki K; Edelson A; Iversen LL; Hausmann L; Schulz JB; Turner AJ
    J Neurochem; 2016 Oct; 139 Suppl 2():17-23. PubMed ID: 27534728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reviewing editorial peer review: a further step towards developing common editorial standards.
    Ponsi M
    Int J Psychoanal; 2003 Apr; 84(Pt 2):443-5. PubMed ID: 12856361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review and appeal: flawed but trusted?
    Pravinkumar E
    Lancet; 2003 Aug; 362(9385):747. PubMed ID: 12957106
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Biomedical Journals in India: some critical concerns.
    Satyanarayana K; Sharma A
    Indian J Med Res; 2010 Aug; 132():119-22. PubMed ID: 20716810
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reducing the costs of peer review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Apr; 11(4):375. PubMed ID: 18368038
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The end of peer review and traditional publishing as we know it.
    Frishauf P
    Medscape J Med; 2008; 10(11):267. PubMed ID: 19099017
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.