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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34152930)

  • 1. Not lowering the bar, just providing a step stool.
    Deretic V; Klionsky DJ
    Autophagy; 2021 Jul; 17(7):1569-1570. PubMed ID: 34152930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review: a view based on recent experience as an author and reviewer.
    Clark RK
    Br Dent J; 2012 Aug; 213(4):153-4. PubMed ID: 22918342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Editors' Perspectives on Enhancing Manuscript Quality and Editorial Decisions Through Peer Review and Reviewer Development.
    Janke KK; Bzowyckyj AS; Traynor AP
    Am J Pharm Educ; 2017 May; 81(4):73. PubMed ID: 28630514
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The editorial process for medical journals: I. Introduction of a series and discussion of the responsibilities of editors, authors, and reviewers.
    Liesegang TJ; Albert DM; Schachat AP; Minckler DS
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2003 Jul; 136(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 12834678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Training and experience of peer reviewers: is being a "good reviewer" a persistent quality?
    García-Doval I
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e144; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388682
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Training and experience of peer reviewers: an additional variable to consider.
    Kulstad E
    PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e143; author reply e145. PubMed ID: 17388681
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
    O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Changing expectations: Do journals drive methodological changes? Should they?
    Erb HN
    Prev Vet Med; 2010 Dec; 97(3-4):165-74. PubMed ID: 20951447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.