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 *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29236721)

  • 1. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers.
    Ross-Hellauer T; Deppe A; Schmidt B
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(12):e0189311. PubMed ID: 29236721
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Ten considerations for open peer review.
    Schmidt B; Ross-Hellauer T; van Edig X; Moylan EC
    F1000Res; 2018; 7():969. PubMed ID: 30135731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Guidelines for open peer review implementation.
    Ross-Hellauer T; Görögh E
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2019; 4():4. PubMed ID: 30858990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.
    Regehr G; Bordage G
    Med Educ; 2006 Sep; 40(9):832-9. PubMed ID: 16925632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing.
    Kulczycki E; Rozkosz EA; Engels TCE; Guns R; Hołowiecki M; Pölönen J
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0214423. PubMed ID: 30908515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?
    Teixeira da Silva JA; Al-Khatib A
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2018 Feb; 24(1):275-285. PubMed ID: 28155093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.
    Nguyen VM; Haddaway NR; Gutowsky LF; Wilson AD; Gallagher AJ; Donaldson MR; Hammerschlag N; Cooke SJ
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(8):e0132557. PubMed ID: 26267491
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.
    Malički M; Aalbersberg IJ; Bouter L; Mulligan A; Ter Riet G
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(3):e0270054. PubMed ID: 36888682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. What is open peer review? A systematic review.
    Ross-Hellauer T
    F1000Res; 2017; 6():588. PubMed ID: 28580134
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview.
    Ford E
    F1000Res; 2015; 4():6. PubMed ID: 25767695
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
    Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
    Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
    Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Rebound peer review: a viable recourse for aggrieved authors?
    Sen CK
    Antioxid Redox Signal; 2012 Feb; 16(4):293-6. PubMed ID: 22098370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.