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)

  • 61. Tips for writing and publishing an article.
    Nahata MC
    Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Feb; 42(2):273-7. PubMed ID: 18212252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Where next with peer-review?
    Maddox J
    Nature; 1989 May; 339(6219):11. PubMed ID: 2566119
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. How to review a scientific paper.
    Tandon R
    Asian J Psychiatr; 2014 Oct; 11():124-7. PubMed ID: 25248566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. The Importance of Peer Review.
    Parse RR
    Nurs Sci Q; 2024 Oct; 37(4):309. PubMed ID: 39373042
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. A new template for referees and guidance on writing high quality papers.
    Goodsitt MM; Das SK; Williamson JF
    Med Phys; 2016 Aug; 43(8):4465. PubMed ID: 27487861
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. How does peer review work?
    Aaron L
    Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Health Psychology's new (old) peer-review policy.
    Freedland KE
    Health Psychol; 2017 Mar; 36(3):189-191. PubMed ID: 28240943
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Reviewing scientific manuscripts.
    Castagnetti M; Bagli D; Fossum M;
    J Pediatr Urol; 2018 Apr; 14(2):133-134. PubMed ID: 29429827
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Manuscript peer review: a guide for advanced practice nurses.
    Christenbery TL
    J Am Acad Nurse Pract; 2011 Jan; 23(1):15-22. PubMed ID: 21208330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Experimenting with peer review.
    Jabri E
    ACS Chem Biol; 2006 Jul; 1(6):325-6. PubMed ID: 17163762
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Canon Fodder-A Case for Contrarian Science.
    Dorn GW
    Circ Res; 2016 Aug; 119(5):584-6. PubMed ID: 27539970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. To blind or not to blind? That remains the question.
    Eva KW
    Med Educ; 2012 Oct; 46(10):924-5. PubMed ID: 22989122
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. A new twist on peer review.
    Patterson M; Schekman R
    Elife; 2018 Jun; 7():. PubMed ID: 29944117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Diversity, debate, and discourse.
    Haller KB
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1991; 20(4):283. PubMed ID: 1941289
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Digital plagiarism--the Web giveth and the Web shall taketh.
    Barrie JM; Presti DE
    J Med Internet Res; 2000; 2(1):E6. PubMed ID: 11720925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. How can I reduce the chances of my paper being rejected?
    Harris JP
    ANZ J Surg; 2016 May; 86(5):325. PubMed ID: 27109295
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. How to get published and how to review.
    Maas M
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Jul; 83(7):1029. PubMed ID: 24840479
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. [Harefuah peer review].
    Shemer Y; Shoenfeld Y
    Harefuah; 2001 May; 140(5):403-5. PubMed ID: 11419062
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Response to letter Dr Rezaeian: journals should review articles, not protocols.
    Smulders Y
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():249. PubMed ID: 26087890
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Patents for the people.
    Nature; 2006 May; 441(7091):256. PubMed ID: 16710375
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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