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 *

268 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29138317)

  • 21. Impact of blinded versus unblinded abstract review on scientific program content.
    Smith J; Nixon R; Bueschen AJ; Venable DD; Henry HH
    J Urol; 2002 Nov; 168(5):2123-5. PubMed ID: 12394728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Working double-blind.
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7179):605-6. PubMed ID: 18256621
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics.
    McGillivray B; De Ranieri E
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():5. PubMed ID: 30140448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
    Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.
    Herron DM
    Surg Endosc; 2012 Aug; 26(8):2275-80. PubMed ID: 22350231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. How do authors' perceptions of their papers compare with co-authors' perceptions and peer-review decisions?
    Rastogi C; Stelmakh I; Beygelzimer A; Dauphin YN; Liang P; Wortman Vaughan J; Xue Z; Daumé Iii H; Pierson E; Shah NB
    PLoS One; 2024; 19(4):e0300710. PubMed ID: 38598482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.
    Laband DN; Piette MJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):147-9. PubMed ID: 8015128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.
    Benson PJ
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Oct; 97(7):487-9. PubMed ID: 26414359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
    Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review.
    Li L; Wang Y; Liu G; Wang M; Wu X
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130493. PubMed ID: 26090849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
    Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. In praise of peer reviewers and the peer review process.
    Peternelj-Taylor C
    J Forensic Nurs; 2010; 6(4):159-61. PubMed ID: 21114756
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
    Cho MK; Justice AC; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 9676669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Personal attributes of authors and reviewers, social bias and the outcomes of peer review: a case study.
    Walker R; Barros B; Conejo R; Neumann K; Telefont M
    F1000Res; 2015; 4():21. PubMed ID: 26594326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.