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 *

226 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27383970)

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

  • 22. Peer review: Troubled from the start.
    Csiszar A
    Nature; 2016 Apr; 532(7599):306-8. PubMed ID: 27111616
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Assessing the reviewers of animal research.
    Rollin BE; Loew FM
    Science; 2001 Nov; 294(5548):1831-2. PubMed ID: 11732546
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Thinking out of the box.
    J Cell Sci; 2012 Mar; 125(Pt 6):1363-5. PubMed ID: 22662334
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Fumes from the spleen.
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 1996 Jul; 10(3):264-7. PubMed ID: 8822769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. We need more insight into what's worth paying for.
    Gunn W
    Nature; 2009 Mar; 458(7236):281. PubMed ID: 19295585
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Journal lays bare remarks from peer reviewers.
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7077):642. PubMed ID: 16467803
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Strengthen scientific review of research protocols.
    Powers JH; Min J; Tribble D
    Nature; 2023 May; 617(7959):35. PubMed ID: 37130932
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Editorial.
    Weisse T
    Eur J Protistol; 2015 Apr; 51(2):A1-2. PubMed ID: 26008765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Peer review at National Institutes of Health: small steps forward.
    Johnston SC; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2008 Nov; 64(5):A15-7. PubMed ID: 19067350
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Reviewing peer review.
    Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2006; 20(3):179-81. PubMed ID: 17058820
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Recommendations for including or reviewing patient reported outcome endpoints in grant applications.
    Snyder C; Gilbert A; Moher D; Kyte D; Daniels E; King M; Calvert M; Chen RC; Brundage M;
    BMJ; 2021 Jun; 373():n1367. PubMed ID: 34193444
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead.
    Gitanjali B
    J Postgrad Med; 2001; 47(3):210-4. PubMed ID: 11832629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Making the case for double-blind peer review in otolaryngology.
    Kiliç S; Baredes S; Gray ST; Eloy JA
    Laryngoscope; 2017 Sep; 127(9):E332. PubMed ID: 28599063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [The dark side of science].
    Calcagno V; Demoinet E
    Med Sci (Paris); 2013 Feb; 29(2):211-5. PubMed ID: 23452610
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Hype in Halifax.
    Maderspacher F
    Curr Biol; 2014 Apr; 24(8):R298-301. PubMed ID: 24735847
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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