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 *

310 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34316354)

  • 41. Predatory Journals Threaten the Quality of Published Medical Research.
    Beall J
    J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 2017 Jan; 47(1):3-5. PubMed ID: 28042746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Publishers' Responsibilities in Promoting Data Quality and Reproducibility.
    Hrynaszkiewicz I
    Handb Exp Pharmacol; 2020; 257():319-348. PubMed ID: 31691858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Publishing Ethics and Predatory Practices: A Dilemma for All Stakeholders of Science Communication.
    Gasparyan AY; Yessirkepov M; Diyanova SN; Kitas GD
    J Korean Med Sci; 2015 Aug; 30(8):1010-6. PubMed ID: 26240476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. False gold: Safely navigating open access publishing to avoid predatory publishers and journals.
    McCann TV; Polacsek M
    J Adv Nurs; 2018 Apr; 74(4):809-817. PubMed ID: 29047152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Predatory journals: a major threat in orthopaedic research.
    Rupp M; Anastasopoulou L; Wintermeyer E; Malhaan D; El Khassawna T; Heiss C
    Int Orthop; 2019 Mar; 43(3):509-517. PubMed ID: 30288548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals.
    Björk BC; Shen C; Laakso M
    PeerJ; 2016; 4():e1990. PubMed ID: 27190709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Predatory publishing or a lack of peer review transparency?-a contemporary analysis of indexed open and non-open access articles in paediatric urology.
    O'Kelly F; Fernandez N; Koyle MA
    J Pediatr Urol; 2019 Apr; 15(2):159.e1-159.e7. PubMed ID: 30867116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Open review and the quest for increased transparency in neuroscience publication.
    Foxe JJ; Bolam P
    Eur J Neurosci; 2017 May; 45(9):1125-1126. PubMed ID: 28186675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The Growth of Poorly Cited Articles in Peer-Reviewed Orthopaedic Journals.
    Kortlever JTP; Tran TTH; Ring D; Menendez ME
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2019 Jul; 477(7):1727-1735. PubMed ID: 31135548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Predatory journals: a serious complication in the scholarly publishing landscape.
    Bowman DE; Wallace MB
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2018 Jan; 87(1):273-274. PubMed ID: 29174298
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Selecting a journal for your manuscript: A 4-step process.
    Sharifi C; Buccheri RK
    J Prof Nurs; 2020; 36(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 32044059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. WASP: Is open access publishing the way forward? A review of the different ways in which research papers can be published.
    Cuschieri S
    Early Hum Dev; 2018 Jun; 121():54-57. PubMed ID: 29499986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Business and publication models of radiology journals.
    Vijayasarathi A; Ding J; Duszak R; Khosa F
    Clin Imaging; 2021 Aug; 76():222-227. PubMed ID: 33971588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers.
    Beall J
    Ann Med Surg (Lond); 2013; 2(2):47-9. PubMed ID: 25737780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals.
    Oermann MH; Conklin JL; Nicoll LH; Chinn PL; Ashton KS; Edie AH; Amarasekara S; Budinger SC
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2016 Nov; 48(6):624-632. PubMed ID: 27706886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Open access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges.
    Björk BC
    Intern Emerg Med; 2017 Mar; 12(2):247-253. PubMed ID: 28101848
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers.
    Fernandez-Llimos F;
    Pharm Pract (Granada); 2018; 16(1):1236. PubMed ID: 29619142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences.
    Stern BM; O'Shea EK
    PLoS Biol; 2019 Feb; 17(2):e3000116. PubMed ID: 30753179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The data paper: a mechanism to incentivize data publishing in biodiversity science.
    Chavan V; Penev L
    BMC Bioinformatics; 2011; 12 Suppl 15(Suppl 15):S2. PubMed ID: 22373175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Collaborative transition to open access publishing by scholarly societies.
    Naim K; Brundy C; Samberg RG
    Mol Biol Cell; 2021 Feb; 32(4):311-313. PubMed ID: 33587648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.