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 *

232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31135399)

  • 1. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process.
    Nagler A; Ovitsh R; Dumenco L; Whicker S; Engle DL; Goodell K
    Acad Med; 2019 Oct; 94(10):1437-1442. PubMed ID: 31135399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [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]  

  • 3. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Expanding Group Peer Review: A Proposal for Medical Education Scholarship.
    Dumenco L; Engle DL; Goodell K; Nagler A; Ovitsh RK; Whicker SA
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):147-149. PubMed ID: 27680319
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Medical Student Journals: Teaching The Peer-Review Process and Promoting Academic Mentorship.
    Kaskas NM; Ballard DH; Weisman JA; Vanchiere JA
    J La State Med Soc; 2016; 168(5):166. PubMed ID: 27797347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Discovering the Benefits of Group Peer Review of Submitted Manuscripts.
    Richards BF; Cardell EM; Chow CJ; Moore KB; Moorman KL; O'Connor M; Hart SE
    Teach Learn Med; 2020; 32(1):104-109. PubMed ID: 31545096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.
    Herron DM
    Surg Endosc; 2012 Aug; 26(8):2275-80. PubMed ID: 22350231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Who benefits from peer review? An analysis of the outcome of 100 requests for review by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.
    Loonen MP; Hage JJ; Kon M
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2005 Oct; 116(5):1461-72; discussion 1473-5. PubMed ID: 16217496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 12. Reviewing Manuscripts: A Systematic Approach.
    Sucato GS; Holland-Hall C
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2018 Oct; 31(5):441-445. PubMed ID: 29936302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
    Parikh LI; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Hazen N; Chescheir NC
    Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 129(2):243-248. PubMed ID: 28079780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Decline to Review a Manuscript: Insight and Implications for
    Raniga SB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Apr; 214(4):723-726. PubMed ID: 31967499
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?
    Gilbert JR; Williams ES; Lundberg GD
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):139-42. PubMed ID: 8015126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
    O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
    Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
    Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
    Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.