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 *

239 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27159173)

  • 1. Peer review in hematopoietic cell transplantation: are we doing our fair share?
    Giralt S; Korngold R; Lazarus HM
    Bone Marrow Transplant; 2016 Sep; 51(9):1159-62. PubMed ID: 27159173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
    Liesegang TJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change?
    Mahawar KK; Kejariwal D; Malviya A; Birla R; Viswanath YK
    Asian J Surg; 2009 Oct; 32(4):240-6. PubMed ID: 19892628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors' Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review.
    Meyer HS; Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Maggio LA
    Acad Med; 2018 Mar; 93(3):464-470. PubMed ID: 28767495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
    Bunner C; Larson EL
    Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Beyond peer review: rethinking scientific publishing with artificial intelligence.
    Al Barajraji M; Niset A; Englebert A; El Hadwe S; Barrit S
    Intensive Care Med; 2024 Oct; 50(10):1715-1716. PubMed ID: 39052069
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
    Sosa JA; Mehta P; Thomas DC; Berland G; Gross C; McNamara RL; Rosenthal R; Udelsman R; Bravata DM; Roman SA
    Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Beyond peer review: rethinking scientific publishing with AI. Author's reply.
    Robba C; Citerio G; Jaber S
    Intensive Care Med; 2024 Oct; 50(10):1717-1718. PubMed ID: 39145790
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peering into peer review: Galileo, ESP, Dr Scott Reuben, and advancing our professional evolution.
    Biddle C
    AANA J; 2011 Oct; 79(5):365-6. PubMed ID: 23256263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Some thoughts on peer review. Authors reply.
    Candal-Pedreira C; Ruano-Ravina A; Pérez-Ríos M; Rey-Brandariz J
    An Pediatr (Engl Ed); 2024 Apr; 100(4):312-313. PubMed ID: 38519298
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The peer review process (aka peer reviewology).
    Yucha CB
    Biol Res Nurs; 2002 Oct; 4(2):71-2. PubMed ID: 12408212
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
    Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of acceptance or rejection on the author's evaluation of peer review of medical manuscripts.
    Garfunkel JM; Lawson EE; Hamrick HJ; Ulshen MH
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1376-8. PubMed ID: 2304217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review: the imprimatur of scientific publication.
    Berg RMG; Hamilton KL; Murray JF; Fong P
    J Physiol; 2024 Sep; 602(17):4079-4083. PubMed ID: 39143732
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.
    Miller E; James Weightman M; Basu A; Amos A; Brakoulias V
    Australas Psychiatry; 2024 Jun; 32(3):247-251. PubMed ID: 38327220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Rigorous Peer Review is Worth the Effort.
    Kearney MH
    Res Nurs Health; 2016 Dec; 39(6):393-395. PubMed ID: 27740694
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.
    Hatch CL; Goodman SN
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):273-4. PubMed ID: 9676679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Fraud and misconduct in scientific publications].
    Matías-Guiu J; García-Ramos R
    Neurologia; 2010; 25(1):1-4. PubMed ID: 20388454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.