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 *

104 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28986098)

  • 1. Reviewers' list December 2017.
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2017 Oct; ():. PubMed ID: 28986098
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Impact of Reviewers' Creditworthiness on Consumers' Purchase Intention in Edge Path: Implications for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.
    Limei C; Wei L
    Front Public Health; 2020; 8():619263. PubMed ID: 33363100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Reviewers' Responses to Medical Research Articles.
    Sohail S; Akhtar J
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2019 Jan; 29(1):29-32. PubMed ID: 30630565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0273813. PubMed ID: 36026494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.
    Assendelft WJ; Koes BW; Knipschild PG; Bouter LM
    JAMA; 1995 Dec; 274(24):1942-8. PubMed ID: 8568990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication.
    Happell B
    Nurse Res; 2011; 18(4):23-7. PubMed ID: 21853889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):137-8. PubMed ID: 8015125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reviewers' comments.
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1973; 6(3):532-9. PubMed ID: 16795437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions.
    Kumar P; Ravindra A; Wang Y; Belli DC; Heyman MB; Gupta SK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2021 Nov; 73(5):567-571. PubMed ID: 34173794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts.
    Stephen D
    Scientometrics; 2022; 127(6):3413-3435. PubMed ID: 35431366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Richardson ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Dealing with conflicting reviewers' comments.
    Johnson SH
    Nurse Author Ed; 1996; 6(4):1-3. PubMed ID: 8868722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
    Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
    Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication.
    Lloyd ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(4):539-43. PubMed ID: 16795738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.