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 *

437 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28079780)

  • 21. [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]  

  • 22. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.
    Hausmann L; Schweitzer B; Middleton FA; Schulz JB
    J Neurochem; 2018 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 29377133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Who reviews the reviewers? Feasibility of using a fictitious manuscript to evaluate peer reviewer performance.
    Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Berlin JA; Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):310-7. PubMed ID: 9737492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
    Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
    Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
    Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Physician-scientists in obstetrics and gynecology: predictors of success in obtaining independent research funding.
    Okeigwe I; Wang C; Politch JA; Heffner LJ; Kuohung W
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jul; 217(1):84.e1-84.e8. PubMed ID: 28315665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Early Discontinuation, Results Reporting, and Publication of Gynecology Clinical Trials From 2007 to 2020.
    Steinberg JR; Magnani CJ; Turner BE; Weeks BT; Young AMP; Lu CF; Zhang N; Richardson MT; Fitzgerald AC; Mekonnen Z; Redman T; Adetunji M; Martin SA; Anderson JN; Chan KS; Milad MP
    Obstet Gynecol; 2022 May; 139(5):821-831. PubMed ID: 35576341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Preparedness of Obstetrics and Gynecology Residents for Fellowship Training.
    Guntupalli SR; Doo DW; Guy M; Sheeder J; Omurtag K; Kondapalli L; Valea F; Harper L; Muffly TM
    Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Sep; 126(3):559-568. PubMed ID: 26244537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. The effect of masking manuscripts for the peer-review process of an ophthalmic journal.
    Isenberg SJ; Sanchez E; Zafran KC
    Br J Ophthalmol; 2009 Jul; 93(7):881-4. PubMed ID: 19211602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit.
    Kawczak S; Mustafa S
    BMJ Open; 2020 Nov; 10(11):e039687. PubMed ID: 33234636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance.
    Ibragimova I; Fulbright H
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2024 Jan; 9(1):1. PubMed ID: 38238865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Fellowship training and board certification in reproductive endocrinology and infertility.
    Gambone JC; Segars JH; Cedars M; Schlaff WD
    Fertil Steril; 2015 Jul; 104(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 26048151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Subspecialty and gender of obstetrics and gynecology faculty in department-based leadership roles.
    Hofler L; Hacker MR; Dodge LE; Ricciotti HA
    Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 125(2):471-476. PubMed ID: 25568998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Subspecialty Faculty in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Distribution, Demographics, and Implications for Training and Clinical Practice.
    Steffen MR; Jiang H; Beninato T; Pool A; Tummala S; Poulas E; Kinyoun MW; Muffly TM
    Cureus; 2023 Nov; 15(11):e48736. PubMed ID: 38094560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.