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 *

75 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26158832)

  • 1. The Air We Breathe: A Critical Look at Practices and Alternatives in the Peer-Review Process.
    Suls J; Martin R
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2009 Jan; 4(1):40-50. PubMed ID: 26158832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. [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]  

  • 5. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
    Marsh HW; Jayasinghe UW; Bond NW
    Am Psychol; 2008 Apr; 63(3):160-8. PubMed ID: 18377106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.
    Jones AW
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Jan; 165(2-3):115-28. PubMed ID: 16784827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Grant application and review procedures of the National Institute of Handicapped Research: survey of applicant and peer reviewer opinions.
    Fuhrer MJ; Grabois M
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1985 May; 66(5):318-21. PubMed ID: 3159374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
    Hughes TJ
    Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Responsible dissemination of scholarly work in radiology.
    Dowd SB; Schulz DL
    Radiol Technol; 1996; 67(5):407-14. PubMed ID: 8726987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Funding food science and nutrition research: financial conflicts and scientific integrity.
    Rowe S; Alexander N; Clydesdale F; Applebaum R; Atkinson S; Black R; Dwyer J; Hentges E; Higley N; Lefevre M; Lupton J; Miller S; Tancredi D; Weaver C; Woteki C; Wedral E;
    Nutr Rev; 2009 May; 67(5):264-72. PubMed ID: 19386030
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Family pediatrics: report of the Task Force on the Family.
    Schor EL;
    Pediatrics; 2003 Jun; 111(6 Pt 2):1541-71. PubMed ID: 12777595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.