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 *

234 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27333021)

  • 1. On Peer Review.
    Kreiman J
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2016 Jun; 59(3):480-3. PubMed ID: 27333021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
    Kearney MH; Freda MC
    Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.
    Benson PJ
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Oct; 97(7):487-9. PubMed ID: 26414359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Don't be rejected, how can we help authors, reviewers and editors?: Report of a Symposium for Editors Publishers and Others with an Interest in Scientific Publication, Held in Boston on Wednesday, 11 March 2015, during the Annual Meeting of the International Association for Dental Research.
    Eaton KA; Innes N; Balaji SM; Pugh C; Honkala E; Lynch CD
    J Dent; 2017 Feb; 57():77-85. PubMed ID: 27894948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Getting published well requires fulfilling editors' and reviewers' needs and desires.
    Schoenwolf GC
    Dev Growth Differ; 2013 Dec; 55(9):735-43. PubMed ID: 24131034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?
    Shashok K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Jan; 8():3. PubMed ID: 18237378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide.
    Kelly J; Sadeghieh T; Adeli K
    EJIFCC; 2014 Oct; 25(3):227-43. PubMed ID: 27683470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Authors' Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.
    Chipperfield L; Citrome L; Clark J; David FS; Enck R; Evangelista M; Gonzalez J; Groves T; Magrann J; Mansi B; Miller C; Mooney LA; Murphy A; Shelton J; Walson PD; Weigel A
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2010 Aug; 26(8):1967-82. PubMed ID: 20569069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.