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 *

441 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32196356)

  • 1. CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures.
    Keehan KH; Gaffney MC; Zucker IH
    Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol; 2020 May; 318(5):H1051-H1058. PubMed ID: 32196356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
    Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
    PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?
    Morton JP
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Mar; 33(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 19261753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Statistical considerations in reporting cardiovascular research.
    Lindsey ML; Gray GA; Wood SK; Curran-Everett D
    Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol; 2018 Aug; 315(2):H303-H313. PubMed ID: 30028200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Impact and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers.
    Dewey M; Levine D; Bossuyt PM; Kressel HY
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Aug; 29(8):3986-3995. PubMed ID: 30694365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
    Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Reported use of reporting guidelines among
    Botos J
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():7. PubMed ID: 30275983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. JACLP Guide for Manuscript Peer Review: How to Perform a Peer Review and How to Be Responsive to Reviewer Comments.
    Oldham MA; Kontos N; Baller E; Cerimele JM
    J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry; 2023; 64(5):468-472. PubMed ID: 36796760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
    Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
    Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. [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]  

  • 18. Ethical issues in studying submissions to a medical journal.
    Olson CM; Glass RM; Thacker SB; Stroup DF
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):290-1. PubMed ID: 9676686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.
    Hirst A; Altman DG
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35621. PubMed ID: 22558178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences.
    Wallach JD; Egilman AC; Gopal AD; Swami N; Krumholz HM; Ross JS
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():1. PubMed ID: 29451557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.