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: 27257328)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.
    García JA; Rodriguez-Sánchez R; Fdez-Valdivia J
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):265-283. PubMed ID: 29079911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.
    Suzuki K; Edelson A; Iversen LL; Hausmann L; Schulz JB; Turner AJ
    J Neurochem; 2016 Oct; 139 Suppl 2():17-23. PubMed ID: 27534728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.
    Resnik DB; Elmore SA
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Feb; 22(1):169-88. PubMed ID: 25633924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review.
    Manning WJ
    J Cardiovasc Magn Reson; 2019 Dec; 21(1):79. PubMed ID: 31884956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.
    Godlee F
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2762-5. PubMed ID: 12038905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Conflicts of interest in medical science: peer usage, peer review and 'CoI consultancy'.
    Charlton BG
    Med Hypotheses; 2004; 63(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 15236772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process.
    Nagler A; Ovitsh R; Dumenco L; Whicker S; Engle DL; Goodell K
    Acad Med; 2019 Oct; 94(10):1437-1442. PubMed ID: 31135399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud?
    Claxton LD
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):17-30. PubMed ID: 15652224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
    Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
    J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. 'How to count sperm properly': checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis.
    Björndahl L; Barratt CL; Mortimer D; Jouannet P
    Hum Reprod; 2016 Feb; 31(2):227-32. PubMed ID: 26682580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. How to review journal manuscripts.
    Rosenfeld RM
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2010 Apr; 142(4):472-86. PubMed ID: 20304264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. Editorial.
    Al-Deeb SM; Khan S
    Neurosciences (Riyadh); 2009 Jan; 14(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21048564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.