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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29434045)

  • 1. Radiation oncology authors and reviewers prefer double-blind peer review.
    Bennett KE; Jagsi R; Zietman A
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Feb; 115(9):E1940. PubMed ID: 29434045
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
    McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group.
    Käsmann L; Schröder A; Frey B; Fleischmann DF; Gauer T; Ebert N; Hecht M; Krug D; Niyazi M; Mäurer M;
    Strahlenther Onkol; 2021 Aug; 197(8):667-673. PubMed ID: 33337507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review.
    Haffar S; Bazerbachi F; Murad MH
    Mayo Clin Proc; 2019 Apr; 94(4):670-676. PubMed ID: 30797567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. ChemComm trials double-blind peer review option.
    Chem Commun (Camb); 2017 Jun; 53(49):6542-6543. PubMed ID: 28597011
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Double-blind peer review.
    Nat Biotechnol; 2015 Mar; 33(3):213. PubMed ID: 25748889
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?
    Moylan EC; Harold S; O'Neill C; Kowalczuk MK
    BMC Pharmacol Toxicol; 2014 Sep; 15():55. PubMed ID: 25266119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Blind peer review: tips for authors, reviewers, and editors.
    Flanagin A
    Nurse Author Ed; 1994; 4(4):1-2. PubMed ID: 7849791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The Red Journal's Outstanding Reviewer Awards for 2014.
    Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jun; 92(2):204-5. PubMed ID: 25968818
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. When the blind lead the blind: In the pit of peer review.
    Rossdale PD
    Equine Vet J; 2010 May; 42(4):283. PubMed ID: 20525041
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Editor's Recognition Awards.
    Klein JS
    Radiographics; 2018; 38(2):329. PubMed ID: 29528836
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. SETAC journals adopt double-blind peer review.
    Menzie C
    Integr Environ Assess Manag; 2019 Jan; 15(1):4-5. PubMed ID: 30589995
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [On our own account: the impact factor].
    Sauer R
    Strahlenther Onkol; 1995 Sep; 171(9):487-9. PubMed ID: 7570297
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review: Award bonus points to motivate reviewers.
    Gurwitz D
    Nature; 2017 Feb; 542(7642):414. PubMed ID: 28230115
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [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]  

  • 20. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.