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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29780193)

  • 41. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies.
    Evoniuk G; Mansi B; DeCastro B; Sykes J
    BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j1726. PubMed ID: 28432051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Submitting a Manuscript to a Scientific Journal.
    Moore S
    Respir Care; 2023 Sep; 68(9):1314-1319. PubMed ID: 37253607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
    Weng N
    Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Surviving peer review.
    Weinstein R
    J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Suggested reviewers: friends or foes?
    Zupanc GKH
    J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2022 Jul; 208(4):463-466. PubMed ID: 35524786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Publication bias in editorial decision making.
    Olson CM; Rennie D; Cook D; Dickersin K; Flanagin A; Hogan JW; Zhu Q; Reiling J; Pace B
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2825-8. PubMed ID: 12038924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Publishing a scientific manuscript on manual therapy.
    Cook C; Brismée JM; Courtney C; Hancock M; May S
    J Man Manip Ther; 2009; 17(3):141-7. PubMed ID: 20046620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
    Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
    Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Revision of manuscripts for scholarly publication.
    Dowd SB; McElveny C
    Radiol Technol; 1997; 69(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 9323765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache.
    Hesterman CM; Szperka CL; Turner DP
    Headache; 2018 Nov; 58(10):1511-1518. PubMed ID: 30011058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Peer review comments on drug trials submitted to medical journals differ depending on sponsorship, results and acceptance: a retrospective cohort study.
    van Lent M; IntHout J; Out HJ
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e007961. PubMed ID: 26423849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts.
    Zoccali C; Amodeo D; Argiles A; Arici M; D'arrigo G; Evenepoel P; Fliser D; Fox J; Gesualdo L; Jadoul M; Ketteler M; Malyszko J; Massy Z; Mayer G; Ortiz A; Sever M; Vanholder R; Vinck C; Wanner C; Więcek A
    Nephrol Dial Transplant; 2015 Dec; 30(12):1947-50. PubMed ID: 26597920
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Integrity of the editing and publishing process is the basis for improving an academic journal's Impact Factor.
    Wang JL; Li X; Fan JR; Yan JP; Gong ZM; Zhao Y; Wang DM; Ma L; Ma N; Guo DM; Ma LS
    World J Gastroenterol; 2022 Nov; 28(43):6168-6202. PubMed ID: 36483155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Error Rates, Decisive Outcomes and Publication Bias with Several Inferential Methods.
    Hopkins WG; Batterham AM
    Sports Med; 2016 Oct; 46(10):1563-73. PubMed ID: 26971328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. Getting published well requires fulfilling editors' and reviewers' needs and desires.
    Schoenwolf GC
    Dev Growth Differ; 2013 Dec; 55(9):735-43. PubMed ID: 24131034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The factors considered by editors of plastic surgery journals in evaluating submitted manuscripts.
    Caulfield RH; Maleki-Tabrizi A; Pleat JM; Tyler MP
    Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2008 Mar; 32(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 18058163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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