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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32943475)

  • 1. Peer reviews. A peer reviewer's view.
    Welsby PD
    Postgrad Med J; 2020 Dec; 96(1142):725-727. PubMed ID: 32943475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A snapshot into reviewer's work; what is the best way to credit them?
    Kumar S; Millar H; Blee I
    Clin Exp Dermatol; 2021 Apr; 46(3):548-549. PubMed ID: 32681653
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reasons for Manuscript Rejection After Peer Review From the Journal Headache.
    Hesterman CM; Szperka CL; Turner DP
    Headache; 2018 Nov; 58(10):1511-1518. PubMed ID: 30011058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. How to avoid the reviewer's axe: one editor's view.
    Senturia SD
    IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2004 Jan; 51(1):127-30. PubMed ID: 14995024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Good Reviewer's Guide to the Publishing Galaxy.
    Bernard C
    eNeuro; 2019; 6(5):. PubMed ID: 31533937
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
    Liesegang TJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Effect on peer review of telling reviewers that their signed reviews might be posted on the web: randomised controlled trial.
    van Rooyen S; Delamothe T; Evans SJ
    BMJ; 2010 Nov; 341():c5729. PubMed ID: 21081600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
    Clark RK
    Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 2016: Reviewing for Radiology-Reporting Guidelines and Why We Use Them.
    Levine D; Kressel HY
    Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):659-62. PubMed ID: 27399329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
    Manske PR
    J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. "This Manuscript Was a Complete Waste of Time": Reviewer Etiquette Matters.
    Durning SJ; Sklar DP; Driessen EW; Maggio LA
    Acad Med; 2019 Jun; 94(6):744-745. PubMed ID: 31136334
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The contemporary landscape of journal publishing.
    McKenna L
    Collegian; 2016; 23(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 27188033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Common Peer Reviewer Criticisms of Manuscripts.
    Conn VS
    West J Nurs Res; 2020 Mar; 42(3):155-156. PubMed ID: 32028871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [The process of external peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication to Enfermería Clínica].
    Moreno-Casbas T; Fuentelsaz-Gallego C; Ruzafa-Martínez M; Puigblanqué-Reyes E
    Enferm Clin; 2008; 18(5):229-31. PubMed ID: 18840330
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Acceptance and rejection of manuscripts for publication in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.
    DiPiro JT
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2013 May; 77(4):66. PubMed ID: 23716734
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A review of the review process.
    Dye L
    J Med Toxicol; 2007 Dec; 3(4):143-5. PubMed ID: 18072166
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [How to make out misuse of statistics in manuscripts or papers quickly and accurately].
    Hu LP; Liu HG
    Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao; 2007 Jan; 5(1):97-100. PubMed ID: 17214946
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Why should I review journal manuscripts?
    Munk PL; Murphy KJ; Nicolaou S; Klass D
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 2014 Aug; 65(3):193. PubMed ID: 25063742
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.