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 *

248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33245469)

  • 1. Peer review practices by medical imaging journals.
    Kwee TC; Adams HJA; Kwee RM
    Insights Imaging; 2020 Nov; 11(1):125. PubMed ID: 33245469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Subspecialty Influence on Scientific Peer Review for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal With a High Impact Factor.
    Parikh LI; Benner RS; Riggs TW; Hazen N; Chescheir NC
    Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 129(2):243-248. PubMed ID: 28079780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor.
    Jones AW
    Forensic Sci Int; 2007 Jan; 165(2-3):115-28. PubMed ID: 16784827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm?
    Chloros GD; Konstantinidis CI; Vasilopoulou A; Giannoudis PV
    Int Orthop; 2023 May; 47(5):1137-1145. PubMed ID: 36856858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Blinding of Peer Review and the Impact on Geographic Diversity of Authors in the Medical Literature.
    Thabit AK
    J Multidiscip Healthc; 2023; 16():1857-1868. PubMed ID: 37409163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
    Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review.
    Laband DN; Piette MJ
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):147-9. PubMed ID: 8015128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
    Tite L; Schroter S
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals.
    Luty J; Arokiadass SM; Easow JM; Anapreddy JR
    J Med Ethics; 2009 Mar; 35(3):200-2. PubMed ID: 19251974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Eigenfactor score and alternative bibliometrics surpass the impact factor in a 2-years ahead annual-citation calculation: a linear mixed design model analysis of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging journals.
    Roldan-Valadez E; Orbe-Arteaga U; Rios C
    Radiol Med; 2018 Jul; 123(7):524-534. PubMed ID: 29508240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact factor correlations with Scimago Journal Rank, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, Eigenfactor Score, and the CiteScore in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging journals.
    Villaseñor-Almaraz M; Islas-Serrano J; Murata C; Roldan-Valadez E
    Radiol Med; 2019 Jun; 124(6):495-504. PubMed ID: 30725395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.
    Levis AW; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA; Thombs BD
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Dec; 79(6):561-5. PubMed ID: 26337110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?
    Koçak B; Keleş A; Köse F
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2024 Feb; ():. PubMed ID: 38375627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.