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)

  • 21. Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019.
    Rivadeneira F; Loder RT; McGuire AC; Chitwood JR; Duffy K; Civitelli R; Kacena MA; Westendorf JJ
    J Bone Miner Res; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2420-2434. PubMed ID: 36063372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer.
    Gisbert JP; Chaparro M
    Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2023 Mar; 46(3):215-235. PubMed ID: 35278500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.
    Hesselberg JO; Dalsbø TK; Stromme H; Svege I; Fretheim A
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2023 Nov; 11(11):MR000056. PubMed ID: 38014743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer reviewer survey for
    Peterson C; Orticio C; Nugent K
    Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent); 2023; 36(1):132-134. PubMed ID: 36578584
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.
    Callaham ML; Tercier J
    PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e40. PubMed ID: 17411314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29.
    Verharen JPH
    Elife; 2023 Nov; 12():. PubMed ID: 37922198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The peer review process.
    Tumin D; Tobias JD
    Saudi J Anaesth; 2019 Apr; 13(Suppl 1):S52-S58. PubMed ID: 30930722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. The impact of peer review on the contribution potential of scientific papers.
    Matsui A; Chen E; Wang Y; Ferrara E
    PeerJ; 2021; 9():e11999. PubMed ID: 34616596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.
    Das AK
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2016 Apr; 72(2):172-4. PubMed ID: 27257328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Nursing Journal Policies on Disclosure and Management of Conflicts of Interest.
    Barnsteiner J; Shawn Kennedy M; Flanagin A; Sietmann C
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2020 Nov; 52(6):680-687. PubMed ID: 33078574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.
    Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2010 Oct; 5(10):e13345. PubMed ID: 20976226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.
    Davis CH; Bass BL; Behrns KE; Lillemoe KD; Garden OJ; Roh MS; Lee JE; Balch CM; Aloia TA
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():4. PubMed ID: 29850109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
    Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.
    Jolly PD
    N Z Vet J; 2003 Aug; 51(4):199. PubMed ID: 16032326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.