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 *

85 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3247675)

  • 1. Peer review: time for a change?
    Stamford JA
    Trends Pharmacol Sci; 1988 Jul; 9(7):234-5. PubMed ID: 3247675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Trouble with peer review.
    Rocha B
    Nat Immunol; 2001 Apr; 2(4):277. PubMed ID: 11276191
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Pathology peer review.
    Boorman GA; Wolf DC; Francke-Carroll S; Maronpot RR
    Toxicol Pathol; 2010 Dec; 38(7):1009-10. PubMed ID: 21248323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Practical problems may preclude realization of this proposal.
    Della Mea V
    J Med Internet Res; 2000; 2(3):E15. PubMed ID: 11720938
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The importance of peer reviewers for advancing the field.
    Putnam M
    J Gerontol Soc Work; 2015; 58(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 25529970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Where next with peer-review?
    Maddox J
    Nature; 1989 May; 339(6219):11. PubMed ID: 2566119
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Funding should recognize the value of peer review.
    Dominiczak MH
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6919):111. PubMed ID: 12520276
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A new twist on peer review.
    Patterson M; Schekman R
    Elife; 2018 Jun; 7():. PubMed ID: 29944117
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Making the most of peer review.
    Nat Nanotechnol; 2010 Aug; 5(8):553. PubMed ID: 20689520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. More peering into editorial peer review.
    Rennie D
    JAMA; 1993 Dec; 270(23):2856-8. PubMed ID: 8133628
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review week 2017.
    Pierson CA
    J Am Assoc Nurse Pract; 2017 Sep; 29(9):500. PubMed ID: 28877425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. From collegial to codified. The evolution of modern peer review.
    Watts C
    Tex Med; 1995 Sep; 91(9):22-4. PubMed ID: 7570381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Web manuscript submission and tracking system for peer review. The journal moves with the time.
    Schroeder TV; Beard JD
    Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg; 2002 Feb; 23(2):95-6. PubMed ID: 11863324
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review: still tilting at windmills.
    Schorr B
    Physicians Manage; 1987 Oct; 27(10):124-6, 128, 133. PubMed ID: 10302231
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review in Virginia.
    Morton RA
    Va Med; 1986 Oct; 113(10):584-6. PubMed ID: 3788264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Is peer review coming of age?
    Thorpe JH
    Med World News; 1989 Jun; 30(11):81. PubMed ID: 10293400
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A physician's perspective of peer review.
    Nelson AR
    Internist; 1986 Jul; 27(6):15-6. PubMed ID: 10278602
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review in Minnesota--the Foundation for Health Care Evaluation-1985.
    Woellner RC
    Minn Med; 1985 Jun; 68(6):465-8. PubMed ID: 4040600
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Physician peer review in New Jersey.
    Dwyer WA
    N J Med; 1989 Feb; 86(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 2710420
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer review: where do we go from here?
    Spar MH
    N Y State Dent J; 1992 Feb; 58(2):12. PubMed ID: 1565320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.