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 *

184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29016678)

  • 1. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?
    D'Andrea R; O'Dwyer JP
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186111. PubMed ID: 29016678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
    Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [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]  

  • 8. Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals.
    Candal-Pedreira C; Rey-Brandariz J; Varela-Lema L; Pérez-Ríos M; Ruano-Ravina A
    An Pediatr (Engl Ed); 2023 Jul; 99(1):54-59. PubMed ID: 37349245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping.
    Siler K; Lee K; Bero L
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2015 Jan; 112(2):360-5. PubMed ID: 25535380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Flagrant Misconduct of Reviewers and Editor: A Case Study.
    Kotchoubey B; Bütof S; Sitaram R
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2015 Aug; 21(4):829-35. PubMed ID: 25156788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor.
    García JA; Rodriguez-Sánchez R; Fdez-Valdivia J
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):265-283. PubMed ID: 29079911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Making the First Cut: An Analysis of Academic Medicine Editors' Reasons for Not Sending Manuscripts Out for External Peer Review.
    Meyer HS; Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Maggio LA
    Acad Med; 2018 Mar; 93(3):464-470. PubMed ID: 28767495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. An audit of the editorial process at the
    Fernandes GJ; Pai SA
    Indian J Cancer; 2021; 58(2):165-170. PubMed ID: 34100409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The consistency of peer-reviewers: Assessment of separate parts of the manuscripts vs final recommendations.
    Bolek M; Bolek C; Shopovski J; Marolov D
    Account Res; 2023 Dec; 30(7):493-515. PubMed ID: 35037802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.