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 *

284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27734643)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
    Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
    Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Surviving peer review.
    Weinstein R
    J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [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]  

  • 5. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication.
    Happell B
    Nurse Res; 2011; 18(4):23-7. PubMed ID: 21853889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
    O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
    Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
    Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors' Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review.
    Meyer HS; Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Maggio LA
    Acad Med; 2018 Mar; 93(3):464-470. PubMed ID: 28767495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.
    Kotsis SV; Chung KC
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2014 Apr; 133(4):958-964. PubMed ID: 24675196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Study design, originality and overall consistency influence acceptance or rejection of manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
    Turcotte C; Drolet P; Girard M
    Can J Anaesth; 2004; 51(6):549-56. PubMed ID: 15197116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.
    Lamb CR; Adams CA
    Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Improvement and decision-making process of an article].
    Matías-Guiu J; García Ramos R
    Neurologia; 2009; 24(6):353-8. PubMed ID: 19798600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.