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 *

120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32393872)

  • 21. Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology.
    O'Kelly F; Fernandez N; Koyle MA
    J Pediatr Urol; 2019 Apr; 15(2):159.e1-159.e7. PubMed ID: 30867116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Choosing the scientific journal for publishing research work: perceptions of medical and dental researchers.
    Sandesh N; Wahrekar S
    Clujul Med; 2017; 90(2):196-202. PubMed ID: 28559705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Writing manuscripts for peer review.
    Weinstein R
    J Clin Apher; 2024 Feb; 39(1):e22108. PubMed ID: 38390668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The bane of publishing a research article in international journals by African researchers, the peer-review process and the contentious issue of predatory journals: a commentary.
    Tarkang EE; Bain LE
    Pan Afr Med J; 2019; 32():119. PubMed ID: 31223409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey.
    Rombey T; Puljak L; Allers K; Ruano J; Pieper D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():9-17. PubMed ID: 32201257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Prerequisites, skills and productivity of young academic urologists in Germany].
    Borgmann H; Bründl J; Huber J; Ruf C; Schagdarsurgengin U; Wullich B; Salem J
    Urologe A; 2017 Dec; 56(12):1603-1610. PubMed ID: 27924352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time.
    Barnett A; Mewburn I; Schroter S
    BMJ; 2019 Dec; 367():l6460. PubMed ID: 31857333
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Love writing.
    Marder E
    Elife; 2019 Mar; 8():. PubMed ID: 30843521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees.
    Stahel PF; Moore EE
    BMC Med; 2016 Feb; 14():29. PubMed ID: 26874834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Imbalance in individual researcher's peer review activities quantified for four British Ecological Society journals, 2003-2010.
    Petchey OL; Fox JW; Haddon L
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(3):e92896. PubMed ID: 24658631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The spectre of ghostwriting: eroding public trust in physicians, clinical trial integrity and biomedical authorship.
    DeTora LM
    Int J Clin Pract; 2016 Jul; 70(7):630-3. PubMed ID: 27354171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A guide to peer reviewing for Spinal Cord.
    Dijkers MP
    Spinal Cord; 2021 May; 59(5):571-581. PubMed ID: 33828248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews.
    Bell K; Kingori P; Mills D
    Sci Technol Human Values; 2024 Jan; 49(1):78-104. PubMed ID: 38046188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Ethics in publishing: ghostwriting, conflicts of interest, and the impact factor.
    Adair SM
    Pediatr Dent; 2006; 28(4):309. PubMed ID: 16903437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
    Kern-Goldberger AR; James R; Berghella V; Miller ES
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 227(1):43-50.e4. PubMed ID: 35120887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview.
    Qi X; Deng H; Guo X
    Postgrad Med J; 2017 Aug; 93(1102):499-503. PubMed ID: 27663911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review.
    Aczel B; Szaszi B; Holcombe AO
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2021 Nov; 6(1):14. PubMed ID: 34776003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].
    García AM; Plasència A; Fernández E
    Gac Sanit; 2002; 16(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 12057181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Medical ghostwriting and informed consent.
    Almassi B
    Bioethics; 2014 Nov; 28(9):491-9. PubMed ID: 23444836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.