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 *

253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27257328)

  • 21. Editorial Peer Reviewers as Shepherds, Rather Than Gatekeepers.
    Boerckel JD; Plotkin LI; Sims NA
    J Bone Miner Res; 2021 Jul; 36(7):1220-1224. PubMed ID: 33900654
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
    Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts.
    Stephen D
    Scientometrics; 2022; 127(6):3413-3435. PubMed ID: 35431366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The peer review process.
    Tumin D; Tobias JD
    Saudi J Anaesth; 2019 Apr; 13(Suppl 1):S52-S58. PubMed ID: 30930722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Editorial policy of Magnesium Research: general considerations on the quality criteria for biomedical papers and some complementary guidelines for the contributors of Magnesium Research. Society for the Development on Magnesium Research.
    Durlach J
    Magnes Res; 1995 Sep; 8(3):191-206. PubMed ID: 8845283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Peer review and the publication process.
    Ali PA; Watson R
    Nurs Open; 2016 Oct; 3(4):193-202. PubMed ID: 27708830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.
    Hojat M; Gonnella JS; Caelleigh AS
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2003; 8(1):75-96. PubMed ID: 12652170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions].
    Maisonneuve H
    Presse Med; 2012 Sep; 41(9 Pt 1):853-60. PubMed ID: 22836196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Rising from Plagiarising.
    Mohan M; Shetty D; Shetty T; Pandya K
    J Maxillofac Oral Surg; 2015 Sep; 14(3):538-40. PubMed ID: 26225041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Improving the peer-review process and editorial quality: key errors escaping the review and editorial process in top scientific journals.
    Margalida A; Colomer MÀ
    PeerJ; 2016; 4():e1670. PubMed ID: 26893961
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. What Motivates
    Donovan EE; Mackert M; Lindstadt CJ; Harrison MA
    Health Commun; 2020 Aug; 35(9):1056-1060. PubMed ID: 32423244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
    Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
    Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors.
    Gollogly L; Momen H
    Rev Saude Publica; 2006 Aug; 40 Spec no.():24-9. PubMed ID: 16924299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Preventing the ends from justifying the means: withholding results to address publication bias in peer-review.
    Button KS; Bal L; Clark A; Shipley T
    BMC Psychol; 2016 Dec; 4(1):59. PubMed ID: 27903302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.