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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2911357)

  • 21. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts.
    Frey JJ
    Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Harefuah peer review].
    Shemer Y; Shoenfeld Y
    Harefuah; 2001 May; 140(5):403-5. PubMed ID: 11419062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Sizing up research.
    Rothman KJ
    Lancet; 2001 Mar; 357(9259):890. PubMed ID: 11265993
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Secrecy and openness in peer review--time for a change of culture?
    Goldbeck-Wood S
    Ital J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 1999 Nov; 31(8):659-62. PubMed ID: 10730555
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Conflict in peer review.
    Lawrence DJ
    J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 1990 May; 13(4):177-8. PubMed ID: 2351879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Scientific publishing. Peer review and quality: a dubious connection?
    Enserink M
    Science; 2001 Sep; 293(5538):2187-8. PubMed ID: 11567115
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Reproducing data.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2006 Jun; 8(6):541. PubMed ID: 16738697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Nothing to hide.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2006 Jun; 8(6):541. PubMed ID: 16738696
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. [Peer review: is one-eye king?].
    de Jong BC; Overbeke AJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1993 Jan; 137(1):17-21. PubMed ID: 8419837
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. How does peer review work?
    Aaron L
    Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Pretentious and deified papers].
    Amato Neto V
    Rev Soc Bras Med Trop; 2003; 36(2):305-6. PubMed ID: 12806469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Where did the scientific method go?
    Noseda M; McLean GR
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 18183010
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. [Which scientific article is best qualified for publication?].
    Barzilai M
    Harefuah; 1997 Jul; 133(1-2):25-6. PubMed ID: 9332053
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Evaluation of social relevance of applied health research: a rough indicator may be the significance of publishing in national professional journals].
    Bouter LM; Knottnerus JA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jun; 144(24):1178-83. PubMed ID: 10876699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Response to Where did the scientific method go?
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):29. PubMed ID: 18183012
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. How do we ensure 'high quality' clinical research?
    Creinin MD; Shields W
    Contraception; 2005 Aug; 72(2):83-4. PubMed ID: 16022844
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Hwang case review committee misses the mark.
    Rossner M
    J Cell Biol; 2007 Jan; 176(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 17210952
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Reviewing refereeing.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2011 Feb; 13(2):109. PubMed ID: 21283117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Bad peer reviewers.
    Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The counting house.
    Adam D
    Nature; 2002 Feb; 415(6873):726-9. PubMed ID: 11845174
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.