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 *

293 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28662046)

  • 1. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.
    Almquist M; von Allmen RS; Carradice D; Oosterling SJ; McFarlane K; Wijnhoven B
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0179031. PubMed ID: 28662046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
    Rethlefsen ML; Schroter S; Bouter LM; Moher D; Ayala AP; Kirkham JJ; Zeegers MP
    Trials; 2021 Nov; 22(1):791. PubMed ID: 34763714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How well does a journal's peer review process function? A survey of authors' opinions.
    Sweitzer BJ; Cullen DJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):152-3. PubMed ID: 8015130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
    Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Use of trial register information during the peer review process.
    Mathieu S; Chan AW; Ravaud P
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(4):e59910. PubMed ID: 23593154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.