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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29537346)

  • 41. The bane of publishing a research article in international journals by African researchers, the peer-review process and the contentious issue of predatory journals: a commentary.
    Tarkang EE; Bain LE
    Pan Afr Med J; 2019; 32():119. PubMed ID: 31223409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Civil Discourse and Peer Review.
    Brucker MC
    Nurs Womens Health; 2017 Dec; 21(6):421-422. PubMed ID: 29223204
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Peer review: a constantly-evolving scientific process.
    Araújo CG
    Arq Bras Cardiol; 2012 Feb; 98(2):e32-5. PubMed ID: 22378341
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The peer review process: Yesterday, today and tomorrow.
    Panda S
    Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2019; 85(3):239-245. PubMed ID: 30971533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. How to Review a Manuscript.
    Hill JA
    J Electrocardiol; 2016; 49(2):109-11. PubMed ID: 26850498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Pride and prejudice in peer review.
    Kemper KJ
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1991; 44(4-5):343-5. PubMed ID: 2010777
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Construction, consent, and condemnation in research on peer review.
    Feinstein AR
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1991; 44(4-5):339-41. PubMed ID: 2010776
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Peer Review.
    Wierzbinski-Cross H
    J Nurses Prof Dev; 2017; 33(2):102-104. PubMed ID: 28252494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Refereed journals.
    Shaughnessy AF
    J Am Board Fam Pract; 1989; 2(4):292-3. PubMed ID: 2801200
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Better Serving Our Readers.
    Miller E
    Pain Manag Nurs; 2017 Oct; 18(5):269. PubMed ID: 28939100
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Through a glass darkly: The present and the future of editorial peer review.
    Grivell L
    EMBO Rep; 2006 Jun; 7(6):567-70. PubMed ID: 16741499
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Infection control and hospital epidemiology: the formal review process.
    Hepker RR
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1991 Jan; 12(1):11-3. PubMed ID: 1900314
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Thumbs down, thumbs up: by Caveman.
    J Cell Sci; 2014 Jan; 127(Pt 1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24520563
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias.
    Chalmers TC; Frank CS; Reitman D
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1392-5. PubMed ID: 2406473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
    Yankauer A
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1338-40. PubMed ID: 2304210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Peer review: time for a change?
    Stamford JA
    Trends Pharmacol Sci; 1988 Jul; 9(7):234-5. PubMed ID: 3247675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Pathology peer review.
    Boorman GA; Wolf DC; Francke-Carroll S; Maronpot RR
    Toxicol Pathol; 2010 Dec; 38(7):1009-10. PubMed ID: 21248323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Reducing the costs of peer review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Apr; 11(4):375. PubMed ID: 18368038
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The academic welfare state: making peer-review count.
    Veríssimo D; Roberts DL
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2013 Nov; 28(11):623-4. PubMed ID: 23932409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Suggestions to nurse authors from one manuscript reviewer.
    Brooks BA
    Nurs Forum; 2018 Oct; 53(4):535-537. PubMed ID: 30009452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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