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 *

444 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32196356)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals.
    Malički M; Mehmani B
    PeerJ; 2024; 12():e17514. PubMed ID: 38948202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. An integrated approach to research and manuscript development.
    Roederer M; Marciniak MW; O'Connor SK; Eckel SF
    Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2013 Jul; 70(14):1211-8. PubMed ID: 23820457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Not lowering the bar, just providing a step stool.
    Deretic V; Klionsky DJ
    Autophagy; 2021 Jul; 17(7):1569-1570. PubMed ID: 34152930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Editorial situation of seven Latin American journals on respiratory diseases].
    Oyarzún G M; Ramírez V A; Agüero F A; Baddini-Martínez JA; Bermúdez G M; Canevá JO; Morales JE; Pérez-Padilla R
    Rev Med Chil; 2007 Aug; 135(8):1072-5. PubMed ID: 17989867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Editorial policies of pediatric journals: survey of instructions for authors.
    Meerpohl JJ; Wolff RF; Niemeyer CM; Antes G; von Elm E
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2010 Mar; 164(3):268-72. PubMed ID: 20194261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Attitudes toward blinding of peer review and perceptions of efficacy within a small biomedical specialty.
    Jagsi R; Bennett KE; Griffith KA; DeCastro R; Grace C; Holliday E; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Aug; 89(5):940-946. PubMed ID: 25035195
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
    Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
    Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Blinded vs. unblinded peer review of manuscripts submitted to a dermatology journal: a randomized multi-rater study.
    Alam M; Kim NA; Havey J; Rademaker A; Ratner D; Tregre B; West DP; Coleman WP
    Br J Dermatol; 2011 Sep; 165(3):563-7. PubMed ID: 21623749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Role of supplementary material in biomedical journal articles: surveys of authors, reviewers and readers.
    Price A; Schroter S; Clarke M; McAneney H
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e021753. PubMed ID: 30249629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.
    Kotsis SV; Chung KC
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2014 Apr; 133(4):958-964. PubMed ID: 24675196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
    Cleary JD; Alexander B
    Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
    Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Acceptance rates for manuscripts submitted to veterinary peer-reviewed journals in 2012.
    Lamb CR; Adams CA
    Equine Vet J; 2015 Nov; 47(6):736-40. PubMed ID: 25302854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.