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 *

297 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33654500)

  • 1. Evaluating, Improving, and Appreciating Peer Review at
    Kennedy AB
    Int J Ther Massage Bodywork; 2021 Mar; 14(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 33654500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [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]  

  • 3. 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]  

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

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
    Igi R
    J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Satisfying Doubters and Critics: Dealing with the Peer Review.
    Bavdekar SB
    J Assoc Physicians India; 2016 Apr; 64(4):66-69. PubMed ID: 27734643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. "It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers"-myths and facts about peer review.
    Zupanc GKH
    J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2024 Jan; 210(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 37318565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay.
    Cornelius JL
    Australas Med J; 2012; 5(1):26-9. PubMed ID: 22905052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Analysis of the Revision Process by American Journal of Roentgenology Reviewers and Section Editors: Metrics of Rejected Manuscripts and Their Final Disposition.
    Cejas C
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jun; 208(6):1181-1184. PubMed ID: 28350482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 'Peer review' for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies.
    Das AK
    Med J Armed Forces India; 2016 Apr; 72(2):172-4. PubMed ID: 27257328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [The editorial handling of manuscripts submitted to Revista Médica de Chile].
    Reyes H; Palma J; Andresen M
    Rev Med Chil; 2004 Jan; 132(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 15379046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
    Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A Shorter Invitation Period for
    Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 31714844
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.