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 *

332 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31209769)

  • 1. Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.
    Shopovski J; Bolek C; Bolek M
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):709-726. PubMed ID: 31209769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Reviewer selection biases editorial decisions on manuscripts.
    Hausmann L; Schweitzer B; Middleton FA; Schulz JB
    J Neurochem; 2018 Jan; ():. PubMed ID: 29377133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Do author-suggested reviewers rate submissions more favorably than editor-suggested reviewers? A study on atmospheric chemistry and physics.
    Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2010 Oct; 5(10):e13345. PubMed ID: 20976226
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
    Wade D; Tennant A
    Clin Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 18(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 15053119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035600. PubMed ID: 32792429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal.
    Cullen DJ; Macaulay A
    Acad Med; 1992 Dec; 67(12):856-9. PubMed ID: 1457023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019.
    Rivadeneira F; Loder RT; McGuire AC; Chitwood JR; Duffy K; Civitelli R; Kacena MA; Westendorf JJ
    J Bone Miner Res; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2420-2434. PubMed ID: 36063372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
    Cho MK; Justice AC; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 9676669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Effect of recommendations from reviewers suggested or excluded by authors.
    Moore JL; Neilson EG; Siegel V;
    J Am Soc Nephrol; 2011 Sep; 22(9):1598-602. PubMed ID: 21852583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.