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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29310871)

  • 21. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
    Wade D; Tennant A
    Clin Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 18(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 15053119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Improving Publication Quality and Quantity for Acute Care Authors From Low- and Middle-Income Settings.
    Bruijns SR; Banner M; Jacquet GA
    Ann Emerg Med; 2017 Apr; 69(4):462-468. PubMed ID: 27914720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors.
    Davis RM; Müllner M
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2002 Oct; 8(4):513-28. PubMed ID: 12501720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. World of wordcraft: on scientific editing.
    Martin A
    Acad Psychiatry; 2014 Feb; 38(1):86-9. PubMed ID: 24430591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
    Newton DP
    Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2018 Oct; 8(10):e020568. PubMed ID: 30341111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review.
    Doi SA; Salzman-Scott SA; Onitilo AA
    Account Res; 2016; 23(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 26192007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Ideas regarding developing, submitting, reviewing, and publishing a scientific manuscript: an editor's perspective.
    Apuzzo ML
    World Neurosurg; 2014; 81(3-4):443-6. PubMed ID: 24720909
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. From submission to publication: a retrospective review of the tables and figures in a cohort of randomized controlled trials submitted to the British Medical Journal.
    Schriger DL; Sinha R; Schroter S; Liu PY; Altman DG
    Ann Emerg Med; 2006 Dec; 48(6):750-6, 756.e1-21. PubMed ID: 16978740
    [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. Effects of Experimental Interventions to Improve the Biomedical Peer-Review Process: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Gaudino M; Robinson NB; Di Franco A; Hameed I; Naik A; Demetres M; Girardi LN; Frati G; Fremes SE; Biondi-Zoccai G
    J Am Heart Assoc; 2021 Aug; 10(15):e019903. PubMed ID: 34278828
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.
    Callaham ML; Knopp RK; Gallagher EJ
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2781-3. PubMed ID: 12038910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effects of differences between peer reviewers suggested by authors and by editors.
    Cummings P
    JAMA; 2006 Sep; 296(10):1231; author reply 1231-2. PubMed ID: 16968843
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The Peer Review System: A Journal Editor's 30-Year Perspective.
    Joseph WS
    Clin Podiatr Med Surg; 2024 Apr; 41(2):359-366. PubMed ID: 38388132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.