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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33333371)

  • 1. Proposal for 'segmented peer review' of multidisciplinary papers.
    Dinakaran D; Anaka M; Mackey JR
    Transl Oncol; 2021 Feb; 14(2):100985. PubMed ID: 33333371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. JACLP Guide for Manuscript Peer Review: How to Perform a Peer Review and How to Be Responsive to Reviewer Comments.
    Oldham MA; Kontos N; Baller E; Cerimele JM
    J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry; 2023; 64(5):468-472. PubMed ID: 36796760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
    Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
    Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A health sciences researcher's experience of manuscript review comments, 2020-2022.
    Joubert G
    S Afr Fam Pract (2004); 2023 Oct; 65(1):e1-e5. PubMed ID: 37916700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.
    Allen D; Gillen E; Rixson L
    JBI Libr Syst Rev; 2009; 7(3):80-129. PubMed ID: 27820426
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. How to be a Good Reviewer for a Scientific Journal.
    Siau K; Kulkarni AV; El-Omar E
    J Clin Exp Hepatol; 2022; 12(4):1238-1243. PubMed ID: 35814508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing.
    Lipworth WL; Kerridge IH; Carter SM; Little M
    Soc Sci Med; 2011 Apr; 72(7):1056-63. PubMed ID: 21388730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review.
    Li L; Wang Y; Liu G; Wang M; Wu X
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130493. PubMed ID: 26090849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Communities of Practice in Peer Review: Outlining a Group Review Process.
    Nagler A; Ovitsh R; Dumenco L; Whicker S; Engle DL; Goodell K
    Acad Med; 2019 Oct; 94(10):1437-1442. PubMed ID: 31135399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review.
    Onitilo AA; Engel JM; Salzman-Scott SA; Stankowski RV; Doi SA
    Account Res; 2014; 21(2):109-21. PubMed ID: 24228975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Consistency between peer reviewers for a clinical specialty journal.
    Cullen DJ; Macaulay A
    Acad Med; 1992 Dec; 67(12):856-9. PubMed ID: 1457023
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
    Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
    Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Eyes wide open: reader and author responsibility in understanding the limits of peer review.
    Benson PJ
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2015 Oct; 97(7):487-9. PubMed ID: 26414359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. CORP: Assessing author compliance with data presentation guidelines for manuscript figures.
    Keehan KH; Gaffney MC; Zucker IH
    Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol; 2020 May; 318(5):H1051-H1058. PubMed ID: 32196356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.