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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27708830)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [The different models of scientific journals].
    Chippaux JP
    Med Trop Sante Int; 2023 Dec; 3(4):. PubMed ID: 38390021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
    Cleary JD; Alexander B
    Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.
    Glonti K; Cauchi D; Cobo E; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMC Med; 2019 Jun; 17(1):118. PubMed ID: 31217033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
    Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals.
    Candal-Pedreira C; Rey-Brandariz J; Varela-Lema L; Pérez-Ríos M; Ruano-Ravina A
    An Pediatr (Engl Ed); 2023 Jul; 99(1):54-59. PubMed ID: 37349245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
    Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An Introduction to Reviewing Research Articles for Academic Journals.
    DeHart WB; Griffin E; Sundaram S; Wood BE; Flynn MG
    HCA Healthc J Med; 2022; 3(6):355-362. PubMed ID: 37427314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.
    Herron DM
    Surg Endosc; 2012 Aug; 26(8):2275-80. PubMed ID: 22350231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
    O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.
    Garmel GM
    Perm J; 2010; 14(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 20740129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review.
    Hamilton DG; Fraser H; Hoekstra R; Fidler F
    Elife; 2020 Nov; 9():. PubMed ID: 33211009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.