BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

261 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33486891)

  • 1. How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts.
    Dhillon P
    FEBS J; 2021 May; 288(9):2750-2756. PubMed ID: 33486891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2.
    Verharen JPH
    Elife; 2023 Nov; 12():. PubMed ID: 37922198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
    Navalta JW; Lyons TS
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Surviving peer review.
    Weinstein R
    J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.
    Melki S; Ben Hassine D; Chebil D; Zanina Y; Ben Saad H; Ben Abdelaziz A
    Tunis Med; 2024 Jan; 102(1):13-18. PubMed ID: 38545724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Suggested reviewers: friends or foes?
    Zupanc GKH
    J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2022 Jul; 208(4):463-466. PubMed ID: 35524786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Revision of manuscripts for scholarly publication.
    Dowd SB; McElveny C
    Radiol Technol; 1997; 69(1):47-54. PubMed ID: 9323765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tips and guidelines for being a good peer reviewer.
    Gisbert JP; Chaparro M
    Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2023 Mar; 46(3):215-235. PubMed ID: 35278500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reviewing Manuscripts: A Systematic Approach.
    Sucato GS; Holland-Hall C
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2018 Oct; 31(5):441-445. PubMed ID: 29936302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review? No thanks!
    Castelo-Branco C
    Climacteric; 2023 Feb; 26(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 36420749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Ponderings on peer review. Part 2. Manuscript critiques.
    Seals DR
    Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol; 2023 Oct; 325(4):R309-R326. PubMed ID: 37519254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Academic Primer Series: Key Papers About Peer Review.
    Yarris LM; Gottlieb M; Scott K; Sampson C; Rose E; Chan TM; Ilgen J
    West J Emerg Med; 2017 Jun; 18(4):721-728. PubMed ID: 28611894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Reviewing scientific manuscripts.
    Curzon ME; Cleaton-Jones PE
    Eur Arch Paediatr Dent; 2011 Aug; 12(4):184-7. PubMed ID: 21806901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
    Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
    Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
    Thombs BD; Levis AW; Razykov I; Syamchandra A; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Jan; 78(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 25300537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The effect of peer review on the improvement of rejected manuscripts.
    Crijns TJ; Ottenhoff JSE; Ring D
    Account Res; 2021 Nov; 28(8):517-527. PubMed ID: 33393365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.