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 *

388 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26337110)

  • 1. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.
    Levis AW; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA; Thombs BD
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Dec; 79(6):561-5. PubMed ID: 26337110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
    Thombs BD; Levis AW; Razykov I; Syamchandra A; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Jan; 78(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 25300537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal.
    Peebles E; Scandlyn M; Hesp BR
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0237804. PubMed ID: 32817699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Artifactual increase in journal self-citation.
    Tighe P; Rice KJ; Gravenstein N; Rice MJ
    Anesth Analg; 2011 Aug; 113(2):378-82. PubMed ID: 21596873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 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. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Fate of manuscripts previously rejected by the American Journal of Neuroradiology: a follow-up analysis.
    McDonald RJ; Cloft HJ; Kallmes DF
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2009 Feb; 30(2):253-6. PubMed ID: 19001539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
    Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
    Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
    Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. From Excessive Journal Self-Cites to Citation Stacking: Analysis of Journal Self-Citation Kinetics in Search for Journals, Which Boost Their Scientometric Indicators.
    Heneberg P
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(4):e0153730. PubMed ID: 27088862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
    Cleary JD; Alexander B
    Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal.
    Holliday EB; Yang G; Jagsi R; Hoffman KE; Bennett KE; Grace C; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jan; 91(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 25835616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.