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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26579064)

  • 1. How peer-review constrains cognition: on the frontline in the knowledge sector.
    Cowley SJ
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1706. PubMed ID: 26579064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper.
    Picardi N
    Ann Ital Chir; 2016; 87():1-3. PubMed ID: 28474609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?
    Shashok K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Jan; 8():3. PubMed ID: 18237378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Linguistic embodiment and verbal constraints: human cognition and the scales of time.
    Cowley SJ
    Front Psychol; 2014; 5():1085. PubMed ID: 25324799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Wide coding: Tetris, Morse and, perhaps, language.
    Cowley SJ
    Biosystems; 2019 Nov; 185():104025. PubMed ID: 31470037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals.
    Garcia-Costa D; Forte A; Lòpez-Iñesta E; Squazzoni F; Grimaldo F
    R Soc Open Sci; 2022 Sep; 9(9):210681. PubMed ID: 36117870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper's revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation.
    Rigby J; Cox D; Julian K
    Scientometrics; 2018; 114(3):1087-1105. PubMed ID: 29491545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer.
    Gisbert JP; Chaparro M
    Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2023 Mar; 46(3):215-235. PubMed ID: 35278500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A Radical Reassessment of the Body in Social Cognition.
    Lindblom J
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():987. PubMed ID: 32581915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review.
    Hosseini M; Horbach SPJM
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 May; 8(1):4. PubMed ID: 37198671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors.
    Gasparyan AY; Ayvazyan L; Blackmore H; Kitas GD
    Rheumatol Int; 2011 Nov; 31(11):1409-17. PubMed ID: 21800117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials.
    Del Mar C; Hoffmann TC
    BMC Med; 2015 Nov; 13():248. PubMed ID: 26521647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. '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]  

  • 16.
    Verharen JPH
    Elife; 2023 Nov; 12():. PubMed ID: 37922198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.
    Jolly PD
    N Z Vet J; 2003 Aug; 51(4):199. PubMed ID: 16032326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
    O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.