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 *

465 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27164274)

  • 21. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
    Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [How to review English-written manuscripts submitted to peer-review journals].
    Asano E
    No To Shinkei; 2005 Oct; 57(10):877-81. PubMed ID: 16277232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.
    Heim A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2018 Oct; 16(1):191. PubMed ID: 30318018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
    Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.
    Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R
    Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Assessment of variables that influence agreement between reviewers for Foot & Ankle International.
    Kwon JY; Gonzalez T; Miller C; Cook SP; Briceno J; Velasco BT; Thordarson D
    Foot Ankle Surg; 2020 Jul; 26(5):573-579. PubMed ID: 31416682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
    O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies.
    Evoniuk G; Mansi B; DeCastro B; Sykes J
    BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j1726. PubMed ID: 28432051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study.
    van Lent M; IntHout J; Out HJ
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e007961. PubMed ID: 26423849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.
    Tate RL; Perdices M; Rosenkoetter U; Shadish W; Vohra S; Barlow DH; Horner R; Kazdin A; Kratochwill T; McDonald S; Sampson M; Shamseer L; Togher L; Albin R; Backman C; Douglas J; Evans JJ; Gast D; Manolov R; Mitchell G; Nickels L; Nikles J; Ownsworth T; Rose M; Schmid CH; Wilson B
    Neuropsychol Rehabil; 2017 Jan; 27(1):1-15. PubMed ID: 27499422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts.
    Abby M; Massey MD; Galandiuk S; Polk HC
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):105-7. PubMed ID: 8015116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
    Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
    Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review.
    Bavdekar SB
    J Assoc Physicians India; 2016 Apr; 64(4):66-69. PubMed ID: 27734643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [The Editorial Advisory Committee].
    Reyes H
    Rev Med Chil; 1996 Dec; 124(12):1421-2. PubMed ID: 9334474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 24.