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 *

182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27200447)

  • 21. Peer-review system could gain from author feedback.
    Korngreen A
    Nature; 2005 Nov; 438(7066):282. PubMed ID: 16292281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Q&A: The global view.
    Dong-Yan J; Cheung F
    Nature; 2015 Apr; 520(7549):S37. PubMed ID: 25924200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Making an impact.
    Wu R
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6979):206-7. PubMed ID: 15014507
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Transparency showcases strength of peer review.
    Pulverer B
    Nature; 2010 Nov; 468(7320):29-31. PubMed ID: 21048742
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Thoughtful peer review is worth the time it takes.
    Michalet X
    Nature; 2005 Jun; 435(7046):1160. PubMed ID: 15988495
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Peer review: Revise rules on conflicts of interest.
    Žliobaitė I; Fortelius M
    Nature; 2016 Nov; 539(7628):168. PubMed ID: 27830803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer review: Trial by Twitter.
    Mandavilli A
    Nature; 2011 Jan; 469(7330):286-7. PubMed ID: 21248816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
    Garvalov BK
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Who would you share your funding with?
    Bollen J
    Nature; 2018 Aug; 560(7717):143. PubMed ID: 30089925
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The system rewards a dishonest approach.
    Brookfield J
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6939):480; discussion 480. PubMed ID: 12774095
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Academics seek to cast peer review as a public service.
    Butler D
    Nature; 2004 Jul; 430(6995):7. PubMed ID: 15229573
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. How do impact factors relate to the real world?
    Skórka P
    Nature; 2003 Oct; 425(6959):661. PubMed ID: 14562076
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments.
    Ploegh H
    Nature; 2011 Apr; 472(7344):391. PubMed ID: 21525890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Scientific research and the human condition.
    Perez Velazquez JL
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6918):13. PubMed ID: 12511929
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Academics are teachers and colleagues too.
    Greif KF
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6918):13. PubMed ID: 12511927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk.
    Fenning TM
    Nature; 2004 Jan; 427(6973):393. PubMed ID: 14749800
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.