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 *

334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30908515)

  • 21. A Pathway to Publishing an Oncology Nursing Book.
    Buchsel PC; Schulmeister L
    Semin Oncol Nurs; 2018 Nov; 34(4):372-380. PubMed ID: 30274872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.
    Fox CW
    Proc Biol Sci; 2021 Oct; 288(1961):20211399. PubMed ID: 34702079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [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]  

  • 25. How to write a scholarly book review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: a review of the literature.
    Lee AD; Green BN; Johnson CD; Nyquist J
    J Chiropr Educ; 2010; 24(1):57-69. PubMed ID: 20480015
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Publishers' Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility.
    Hrynaszkiewicz I
    Handb Exp Pharmacol; 2020; 257():319-348. PubMed ID: 31691858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The Publisher's Perspective on Journal and Book Publishing.
    Nahlen D; Clark S
    Semin Oncol Nurs; 2018 Nov; 34(4):381-385. PubMed ID: 30270139
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Ten considerations for open peer review.
    Schmidt B; Ross-Hellauer T; van Edig X; Moylan EC
    F1000Res; 2018; 7():969. PubMed ID: 30135731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Current status of biomedical book reviewing: Part IV. Major American and British biomedical book publishers.
    Chen CC
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1974 Jul; 62(3):302-7. PubMed ID: 4466508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Peer review of biomedical manuscripts: an update.
    Ludbrook J
    J Clin Neurosci; 2003 Sep; 10(5):540-2. PubMed ID: 12948455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. 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]  

  • 36. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.
    Benson PJ
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Oct; 97(7):487-9. PubMed ID: 26414359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.
    Yarris LM; Gottlieb M; Scott K; Sampson C; Rose E; Chan TM; Ilgen J
    West J Emerg Med; 2017 Jun; 18(4):721-728. PubMed ID: 28611894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Peer Reviewers and Their Critical Contributions to Scholarly Publishing.
    Avery MD
    J Midwifery Womens Health; 2022 May; 67(3):293-294. PubMed ID: 35593318
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Adopting ORCID as a unique identifier will benefit all involved in scholarly communication.
    Arunachalam S; Madhan M
    Natl Med J India; 2016; 29(4):227-234. PubMed ID: 28051004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.