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 *

215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33393365)

  • 21. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
    Perlis RH; Kendall-Taylor J; Hart K; Ganguli I; Berlin JA; Bradley SM; Haneuse S; Inouye SK; Jacobs EA; Morris A; Ogedegbe O; Perencevich E; Shulman LN; Trueger NS; Fihn SD; Rivara FP; Flanagin A
    JAMA Netw Open; 2023 Jan; 6(1):e2253296. PubMed ID: 36705922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Shared burden is always lighter - Peer-review performance in an ophthalmological journal 2010-2020.
    Bro T; Hammarfelt B
    Acta Ophthalmol; 2022 Aug; 100(5):559-563. PubMed ID: 34608758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Fate of Manuscripts Rejected by a Specialty Psychiatry Journal: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
    Menon V; Jayaprakashan KP; Varadharajan N; Ameen S; Praharaj SK
    Indian J Psychol Med; 2022 Sep; 44(5):493-498. PubMed ID: 36157014
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Why Do Manuscripts Get Rejected? A Content Analysis of Rejection Reports from the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine.
    Menon V; Varadharajan N; Praharaj SK; Ameen S
    Indian J Psychol Med; 2022 Jan; 44(1):59-65. PubMed ID: 35509668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [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]  

  • 32. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal.
    Peebles E; Scandlyn M; Hesp BR
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0237804. PubMed ID: 32817699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The peer review process.
    Tumin D; Tobias JD
    Saudi J Anaesth; 2019 Apr; 13(Suppl 1):S52-S58. PubMed ID: 30930722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR.
    Chew FS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Mar; 156(3):627-32. PubMed ID: 1899764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Suggestions for reviewing manuscripts.
    Alexandrov AV; Hennerici MG; Norrving B
    Cerebrovasc Dis; 2009; 28(3):243-6. PubMed ID: 19602875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
    Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
    Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [A guide to the peer review of scientific papers].
    Giunta RE; Prommersberger KJ
    Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir; 2012 Aug; 44(4):193-7. PubMed ID: 22836956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.