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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34592244)

  • 1. Working toward reducing bias in peer review.
    Rye KA; Davidson NO; Burlingame AL; Guengerich FP
    J Lipid Res; 2021; 62():100124. PubMed ID: 34592244
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Gender bias in scholarly peer review.
    Helmer M; Schottdorf M; Neef A; Battaglia D
    Elife; 2017 Mar; 6():. PubMed ID: 28322725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mitigating potential bias in peer review at IFAR.
    Smith TL; Turner J; Lin S; Luong A
    Int Forum Allergy Rhinol; 2023 Feb; 13(2):105-106. PubMed ID: 36453142
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Exploring Bias in Scientific Peer Review: An ASCO Initiative.
    McKenzie ND; Liu R; Chiu AV; Chavez-MacGregor M; Frohlich D; Ahmad S; Hendricks CB
    JCO Oncol Pract; 2022 Dec; 18(12):791-799. PubMed ID: 36215686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Working Toward Reducing Bias in Peer Review.
    Rye KA; Davidson NO; Burlingame AL; Guengerich FP
    Mol Cell Proteomics; 2021; 20():100152. PubMed ID: 34592424
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Minimizing bias in clinical peer review.
    Edwards MT
    Physician Exec; 2011; 37(6):50-2, 54. PubMed ID: 22195417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Medical journal peer review: process and bias.
    Manchikanti L; Kaye AD; Boswell MV; Hirsch JA
    Pain Physician; 2015; 18(1):E1-E14. PubMed ID: 25675064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: A field study.
    Mattijssen EJAT; Witteman CLM; Berger CEH; Stoel RD
    Sci Justice; 2020 Jul; 60(4):337-346. PubMed ID: 32650935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bias Among Peer Reviewers.
    Bauchner H; Fontanarosa P
    JAMA; 2017 Aug; 318(8):755-756. PubMed ID: 28829869
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Bias Among Peer Reviewers.
    Adler AC; Stayer SA
    JAMA; 2017 Aug; 318(8):755. PubMed ID: 28829866
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A proposal for an 'equal peer-review' statement.
    Moustafa K
    Trends Pharmacol Sci; 2015 Aug; 36(8):494-5. PubMed ID: 26112779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Everything You Need to Know About Peer Review - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
    Gregory AT; Denniss AR
    Heart Lung Circ; 2019 Aug; 28(8):1148-1153. PubMed ID: 31230792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. To see or not to see: a cross-sectional study suggesting lack of bias towards authors in the peer-review process.
    Daou H; Gu L; Lipner SR
    Br J Dermatol; 2021 Dec; 185(6):1249-1251. PubMed ID: 34185320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Personal Bias in Peer Review.
    Maynard C
    Med Care; 2018 Jul; 56(7):643. PubMed ID: 29750682
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Bias in peer review.
    Eaton K; Anthony H
    J R Soc Med; 2000 Jun; 93(6):338. PubMed ID: 10911846
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reducing publication bias in biomedical research: reviewing and registering protocol with a suitable journal.
    Rezaeian M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():248-9. PubMed ID: 26051243
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Unconscious Bias in Peer Review.
    Onken J; Chang L; Kanwal F
    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2021 Mar; 19(3):419-420. PubMed ID: 33279782
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The impact of double-blind peer review on gender bias in scientific publishing: a systematic review.
    Kern-Goldberger AR; James R; Berghella V; Miller ES
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 227(1):43-50.e4. PubMed ID: 35120887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review: single-blind, double-blind, or all the way-blind?
    Bazi T
    Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Mar; 31(3):481-483. PubMed ID: 31820012
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. For a paradigm shift in peer review, bold steps need to be taken.
    Teixeira da Silva JA
    Radiol Med; 2023 Jul; 128(7):886-887. PubMed ID: 37285066
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.