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 *

199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34282058)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
    Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
    PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.
    Callaham ML; Tercier J
    PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e40. PubMed ID: 17411314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?
    D'Andrea R; O'Dwyer JP
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(10):e0186111. PubMed ID: 29016678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. [Is the methodology of our original articles essentially inferior to similar papers published in English-speaking journals?].
    Reyes H; Kauffmann R; Andresen M
    Rev Med Chil; 1998 Apr; 126(4):361-2. PubMed ID: 9699364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Huml AM; Albert JM; Beltran JM; Berg KA; Collins CC; Hood EN; Nelson LC; Perzynski AT; Stange KC; Sehgal AR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2023 May; 38(6):1393-1401. PubMed ID: 36163530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
    Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
    J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
    [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. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Peer Reviewing Papers for a Nursing Journal.
    Pierson CA
    Am J Nurs; 2022 Nov; 122(11):52-56. PubMed ID: 36261907
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. How to review journal manuscripts.
    Rosenfeld RM
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2010 Apr; 142(4):472-86. PubMed ID: 20304264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Reviewing manuscripts for the Journal of Genetic Counseling: practical suggestions.
    Venne V
    J Genet Couns; 2015 Apr; 24(2):189-92. PubMed ID: 25527418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.
    Almquist M; von Allmen RS; Carradice D; Oosterling SJ; McFarlane K; Wijnhoven B
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0179031. PubMed ID: 28662046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Understanding Plain English summaries. A comparison of two approaches to improve the quality of Plain English summaries in research reports.
    Kirkpatrick E; Gaisford W; Williams E; Brindley E; Tembo D; Wright D
    Res Involv Engagem; 2017; 3():17. PubMed ID: 29062542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.