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 *

283 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27734643)

  • 21. Peer review? No thanks!
    Castelo-Branco C
    Climacteric; 2023 Feb; 26(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 36420749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Lessons Learned From
    Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):41-44. PubMed ID: 31670593
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
    Armstrong AW; Idriss SZ; Kimball AB; Bernhard JD
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2008 Apr; 58(4):632-5. PubMed ID: 18249470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A Learned Society's Perspective on Publishing.
    Suzuki K; Edelson A; Iversen LL; Hausmann L; Schulz JB; Turner AJ
    J Neurochem; 2016 Oct; 139 Suppl 2():17-23. PubMed ID: 27534728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
    Weng N
    Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reference accuracy: authors', reviewers', editors', and publishers' contributions.
    Barroga EF
    J Korean Med Sci; 2014 Dec; 29(12):1587-9. PubMed ID: 25469055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication.
    Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Dec; 195(6):W382-7. PubMed ID: 21098168
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Peering Into Peer Review:
    Provenzale JM; Buch K; Filippi CG; Gaskill-Shipley M; Hacein-Bey L; Soares BP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):45-49. PubMed ID: 31670589
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035600. PubMed ID: 32792429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
    Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
    Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Revision of manuscripts for scholarly publication.
    Dowd SB; McElveny C
    Radiol Technol; 1997; 69(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 9323765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.