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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30972261)

  • 1. The cases for and against double-blind reviews.
    Cox AR; Montgomerie R
    PeerJ; 2019; 7():e6702. PubMed ID: 30972261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2.
    Verharen JPH
    Elife; 2023 Nov; 12():. PubMed ID: 37922198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
    Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?
    Cássia-Silva C; Silva Rocha B; Fernanda Liévano-Latorre L; Sobreiro MB; Diele-Viegas LM
    PeerJ; 2023; 11():e15186. PubMed ID: 37065686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
    Kern-Goldberger AR; James R; Berghella V; Miller ES
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 227(1):43-50.e4. PubMed ID: 35120887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal.
    Edwards HA; Schroeder J; Dugdale HL
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0201725. PubMed ID: 30157231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.
    Parmanne P; Laajava J; Järvinen N; Harju T; Marttunen M; Saloheimo P
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2023 Oct; 8(1):14. PubMed ID: 37876004
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution.
    Fox CW; Paine CET
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Mar; 9(6):3599-3619. PubMed ID: 30962913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.
    Tomkins A; Zhang M; Heavlin WD
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2017 Nov; 114(48):12708-12713. PubMed ID: 29138317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.
    Flanagin A; Carey LA; Fontanarosa PB; Phillips SG; Pace BP; Lundberg GD; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):222-4. PubMed ID: 9676661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics.
    McGillivray B; De Ranieri E
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():5. PubMed ID: 30140448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Gender disparities in high-quality dermatology research: a descriptive bibliometric study on scientific authorships.
    Bendels MHK; Dietz MC; Brüggmann D; Oremek GM; Schöffel N; Groneberg DA
    BMJ Open; 2018 Apr; 8(4):e020089. PubMed ID: 29654022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.
    Levis AW; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA; Thombs BD
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Dec; 79(6):561-5. PubMed ID: 26337110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.
    Jones AW
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Jan; 165(2-3):115-28. PubMed ID: 16784827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Double-blind peer review].
    Fenyvesi T
    Orv Hetil; 2002 Feb; 143(5):245-8. PubMed ID: 11875838
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.
    Smith OM; Davis KL; Pizza RB; Waterman R; Dobson KC; Foster B; Jarvey JC; Jones LN; Leuenberger W; Nourn N; Conway EE; Fiser CM; Hansen ZA; Hristova A; Mack C; Saunders AN; Utley OJ; Young ML; Davis CL
    Nat Ecol Evol; 2023 Apr; 7(4):512-523. PubMed ID: 36914773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals.
    Bendels MHK; Müller R; Brueggmann D; Groneberg DA
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(1):e0189136. PubMed ID: 29293499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.