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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28599063)

  • 1. Making the case for double-blind peer review in otolaryngology.
    Kiliç S; Baredes S; Gray ST; Eloy JA
    Laryngoscope; 2017 Sep; 127(9):E332. PubMed ID: 28599063
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Announcement: double-blind peer review.
    Nat Genet; 2015 Mar; 47(3):187. PubMed ID: 25711858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Let's make peer review scientific.
    Rennie D
    Nature; 2016 Jul; 535(7610):31-3. PubMed ID: 27383970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Double-blind review: the paw print is a giveaway.
    Naqvi KR
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322504
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Double-blind review: easy to guess in specialist fields.
    Lane D
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Double-blind review: let diversity reign.
    O'Hara B
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reviewers support blinding in peer review.
    Tierney AJ
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):113. PubMed ID: 18990091
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Who stands to lose from double-blind review?
    Garvalov BK
    Nature; 2008 Mar; 452(7183):28. PubMed ID: 18322505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The promotion of academic pediatric otolaryngology by journal peer review.
    Ruben RJ
    Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol; 2003 Dec; 67 Suppl 1():S165-9. PubMed ID: 14662188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review.
    Twaij H; Oussedik S; Hoffmeyer P
    Bone Joint J; 2014 Apr; 96-B(4):436-41. PubMed ID: 24692607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Take peer pressure out of peer review.
    Derrick G
    Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):7. PubMed ID: 29388970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.
    Scarfe WC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
    Altschuler EL
    Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer reviews: make them public.
    Mietchen D
    Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
    van Loon AJ
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. International peer review improved Irish research rankings.
    O'Carroll C
    Nature; 2009 Aug; 460(7258):949. PubMed ID: 19693064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.