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 *

252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27680319)

  • 1. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.
    Dumenco L; Engle DL; Goodell K; Nagler A; Ovitsh RK; Whicker SA
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 27680319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.
    Sidalak D; Purdy E; Luckett-Gatopoulos S; Murray H; Thoma B; Chan TM
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):201-204. PubMed ID: 27191842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Addressing Authorship Issues Prospectively: A Heuristic Approach.
    Roberts LW
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):143-146. PubMed ID: 27355782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.
    Yarris LM; Gottlieb M; Scott K; Sampson C; Rose E; Chan TM; Ilgen J
    West J Emerg Med; 2017 Jun; 18(4):721-728. PubMed ID: 28611894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Upon Further Review: Peer Process Vital to Publishing.
    Katz A
    Oncol Nurs Forum; 2016 Nov; 43(6):675-676. PubMed ID: 27768133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Discovering the Benefits of Group Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts.
    Richards BF; Cardell EM; Chow CJ; Moore KB; Moorman KL; O'Connor M; Hart SE
    Teach Learn Med; 2020; 32(1):104-109. PubMed ID: 31545096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Online survey of nursing journal peer reviewers: indicators of quality in manuscripts.
    Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome M
    West J Nurs Res; 2011 Jun; 33(4):506-21. PubMed ID: 21078915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals.
    Bordeaux BC; Wiley C; Tandon SD; Horowitz CR; Brown PB; Bass EB
    Prog Community Health Partnersh; 2007; 1(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 20208291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium: A Writer's Guide to Key Steps in Producing Quality Medical Education Scholarship.
    Chan TM; Thoma B; Hall AK; Murnaghan A; Ting DK; Hagel C; Weersink K; Camorlinga P; McEwen J; Bhanji F; Sherbino J
    CJEM; 2017 May; 19(S1):S9-S15. PubMed ID: 28508740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
    Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
    Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. MedEdPORTAL: educational scholarship for teaching.
    Reynolds RJ; Candler CS
    J Contin Educ Health Prof; 2008; 28(2):91-4. PubMed ID: 18521876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [How can you succeed in having your manuscript published in a medical journal. Advices to inexpert authors that can also be useful to senior authors].
    Reyes B H
    Rev Med Chil; 2019 Feb; 147(2):238-242. PubMed ID: 31095173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Implementation and Outcomes of a Faculty-Based, Peer Review Manuscript Writing Workshop.
    Kulage KM; Larson EL
    J Prof Nurs; 2016; 32(4):262-70. PubMed ID: 27424926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
    Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1415-7. PubMed ID: 12438028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review.
    Van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    J Gen Intern Med; 1999 Oct; 14(10):622-4. PubMed ID: 10571708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts.
    Alexandrov AV; Hennerici MG; Norrving B
    Cerebrovasc Dis; 2009; 28(3):243-6. PubMed ID: 19602875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.