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 *

74 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26158836)

  • 1. What If Social Scientists Had Reviewed Great Scientific Works of the Past?
    Trafimow D; Rice S
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2009 Jan; 4(1):65-78. PubMed ID: 26158836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are Social Scientists Harder on Their Colleagues Than Physical Scientists Were on Theirs in the Past? Commentary on Trafimow & Rice (2009).
    Nickerson RS
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2009 Jan; 4(1):79-83. PubMed ID: 26158837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Science in the crosshairs of enlightenment. Significance of hypothetical thinking].
    Wieland W
    Acta Hist Leopoldina; 2011; (57):99-130. PubMed ID: 22397137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
    Weng N
    Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [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]  

  • 8. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. New ways of insulin delivery.
    Heinemann L
    Int J Clin Pract Suppl; 2011 Feb; (170):31-46. PubMed ID: 21323811
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
    Navalta JW; Lyons TS
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Critical assessment of progress of medical sciences in Iran and Turkey: the way developing countries with limited resources should make effective contributions to the production of science.
    Massarrat S; Kolahdoozan S
    Arch Iran Med; 2011 Nov; 14(6):370-7. PubMed ID: 22039839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
    Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact factor and other indices to assess science, scientists and scientific journals.
    Satyanarayana K
    Indian J Physiol Pharmacol; 2010; 54(3):197-212. PubMed ID: 21409860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The art and science of reviewing manuscripts for orthopaedic journals: Part II. Optimizing the manuscript: practical hints for improving the quality of reviews.
    Levine AM; Heckman JD; Hensinger RN
    Instr Course Lect; 2004; 53():689-97. PubMed ID: 15116659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.