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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28671061)

  • 1. The 10-D assessment and evidence-based medicine tool for authors and peer reviewers in clinical pharmacology
.
    Woodcock BG; Harder S
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2017 Aug; 55(8):639-642. PubMed ID: 28671061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Peer review in Clinical Pharmacology using the 8-D Assessment.
    Woodcock BG
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2017 Mar; 55(3):201-200. PubMed ID: 28218890
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Good publication practices in clinical pharmacology: transparency, evidence-based medicine and the 7-D assessment.
    Woodcock BG; Luger V
    Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther; 2015 Oct; 53(10):799-802. PubMed ID: 26329349
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Authors' Submission Toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published.
    Chipperfield L; Citrome L; Clark J; David FS; Enck R; Evangelista M; Gonzalez J; Groves T; Magrann J; Mansi B; Miller C; Mooney LA; Murphy A; Shelton J; Walson PD; Weigel A
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2010 Aug; 26(8):1967-82. PubMed ID: 20569069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
    Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
    Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
    McGhan WF; Al M; Doshi JA; Kamae I; Marx SE; Rindress D
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1086-99. PubMed ID: 19744291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Evaluating the evidence for evidence-based medicine: are randomized clinical trials less flawed than other forms of peer-reviewed medical research?
    Steen RG; Dager SR
    FASEB J; 2013 Sep; 27(9):3430-6. PubMed ID: 23695156
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Getting published well requires fulfilling editors' and reviewers' needs and desires.
    Schoenwolf GC
    Dev Growth Differ; 2013 Dec; 55(9):735-43. PubMed ID: 24131034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Reviewing the review process: towards good practice in the peer review of manuscripts submitted to nursing journals.
    Burnard P; Hannigan B
    Nurse Educ Today; 2001 Apr; 21(3):238-42. PubMed ID: 11322816
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review in journals indexed in Index Medicus.
    Colaianni LA
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):156-8. PubMed ID: 8015132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review practices in biomedical literature: a time for change?
    Mahawar KK; Kejariwal D; Malviya A; Birla R; Viswanath YK
    Asian J Surg; 2009 Oct; 32(4):240-6. PubMed ID: 19892628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.