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 *

145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31745980)

  • 41. Research practices and statistical reporting quality in 250 economic psychology master's theses: a meta-research investigation.
    Olsen J; Mosen J; Voracek M; Kirchler E
    R Soc Open Sci; 2019 Dec; 6(12):190738. PubMed ID: 31903199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Navigating the Science System: Research Integrity and Academic Survival Strategies.
    Reyes Elizondo A; Kaltenbrunner W
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2024 Apr; 30(2):12. PubMed ID: 38568341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Commentary: Perverse incentives or rotten apples?
    Bouter LM
    Account Res; 2015; 22(3):148-61. PubMed ID: 25635847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists.
    Garcia-Garzon E; Angulo-Brunet A; Lecuona O; Barrada JR; Corradi G
    Curr Psychol; 2022 Feb; ():1-12. PubMed ID: 35250242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward.
    Keener SK; Kepes S; Torka AK
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2023 Sep; 239():104005. PubMed ID: 37625919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. A purely confirmatory replication study of structural brain-behavior correlations.
    Boekel W; Wagenmakers EJ; Belay L; Verhagen J; Brown S; Forstmann BU
    Cortex; 2015 May; 66():115-33. PubMed ID: 25684445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Researchers' interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study.
    Shaw D; Satalkar P
    Account Res; 2018; 25(2):79-93. PubMed ID: 29291621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Replication concerns in sports and exercise science: a narrative review of selected methodological issues in the field.
    Mesquida C; Murphy J; Lakens D; Warne J
    R Soc Open Sci; 2022 Dec; 9(12):220946. PubMed ID: 36533197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners.
    Lilford RJ; Richardson A; Stevens A; Fitzpatrick R; Edwards S; Rock F; Hutton JL
    Health Technol Assess; 2001; 5(8):1-57. PubMed ID: 11368832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research.
    Stanley TD; Carter EC; Doucouliagos H
    Psychol Bull; 2018 Dec; 144(12):1325-1346. PubMed ID: 30321017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. The Use of Questionable Research Practices to Survive in Academia Examined With Expert Elicitation, Prior-Data Conflicts, Bayes Factors for Replication Effects, and the Bayes Truth Serum.
    van de Schoot R; Winter SD; Griffioen E; Grimmelikhuijsen S; Arts I; Veen D; Grandfield EM; Tummers LG
    Front Psychol; 2021; 12():621547. PubMed ID: 34912255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. HARKing, Cherry-Picking, P-Hacking, Fishing Expeditions, and Data Dredging and Mining as Questionable Research Practices.
    Andrade C
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2021 Feb; 82(1):. PubMed ID: 33999541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout.
    de Meis L; Velloso A; Lannes D; Carmo MS; de Meis C
    Braz J Med Biol Res; 2003 Sep; 36(9):1135-41. PubMed ID: 12937778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. The Weak Spots in Contemporary Science (and How to Fix Them).
    Wicherts JM
    Animals (Basel); 2017 Nov; 7(12):. PubMed ID: 29186879
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community.
    Buljan I; Barać L; Marušić A
    Account Res; 2018; 25(4):220-238. PubMed ID: 29637796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Brazilian Science and Research Integrity: Where are We? What Next?
    Vasconcelos SM; Sorenson MM; Watanabe EH; Foguel D; Palácios M
    An Acad Bras Cienc; 2015; 87(2):1259-69. PubMed ID: 26131643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. A survey of publication practices of single-case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects.
    Shadish WR; Zelinsky NA; Vevea JL; Kratochwill TR
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2016 Sep; 49(3):656-73. PubMed ID: 27174301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. A data-sharing agreement helps to increase researchers' willingness to share primary data: results from a randomized controlled trial.
    Polanin JR; Terzian M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():60-69. PubMed ID: 30342969
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Researchers' Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research.
    Bakker M; Hartgerink CH; Wicherts JM; van der Maas HL
    Psychol Sci; 2016 Aug; 27(8):1069-77. PubMed ID: 27354203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Making Research Evaluation More Transparent: Aligning Research Philosophy, Institutional Values, and Reporting.
    Dougherty MR; Slevc LR; Grand JA
    Perspect Psychol Sci; 2019 May; 14(3):361-375. PubMed ID: 30629888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.