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 *

174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28430833)

  • 1. On the Need for Quantitative Bias Analysis in the Peer-Review Process.
    Fox MP; Lash TL
    Am J Epidemiol; 2017 May; 185(10):865-868. PubMed ID: 28430833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quantitative bias analysis for study and grant planning.
    Fox MP; Lash TL
    Ann Epidemiol; 2020 Mar; 43():32-36. PubMed ID: 32113733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.
    Oehrlein EM; Graff JS; Perfetto EM; Mullins CD; Dubois RW; Anyanwu C; Onukwugha E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(1):111-119. PubMed ID: 29415784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On ethical peer review and publication: the importance of professional conduct and communication.
    Spear HJ
    Nurse Author Ed; 2004; 14(4):1-3. PubMed ID: 15551686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
    Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.
    Resnik DB; Elmore SA
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2016 Feb; 22(1):169-88. PubMed ID: 25633924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited.
    Lazarus C; Haneef R; Ravaud P; Hopewell S; Altman DG; Boutron I
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 77():44-51. PubMed ID: 27164274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [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]  

  • 12. Bias in the Peer Review Process: Can We Do Better?
    Tvina A; Spellecy R; Palatnik A
    Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Jun; 133(6):1081-1083. PubMed ID: 31135720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Medical Student Journals: Teaching The Peer-Review Process and Promoting Academic Mentorship.
    Kaskas NM; Ballard DH; Weisman JA; Vanchiere JA
    J La State Med Soc; 2016; 168(5):166. PubMed ID: 27797347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications.
    Tamblyn R; Girard N; Hanley J; Habib B; Mota A; Khan KM; Ardern CL
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0292306. PubMed ID: 37796852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.
    Dumenco L; Engle DL; Goodell K; Nagler A; Ovitsh RK; Whicker SA
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 27680319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [Peer review: a closed system in need of reform].
    Thörn A
    Lakartidningen; 2002 Jul; 99(30-31):3106-8. PubMed ID: 12198928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.