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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35165883)

  • 1. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal reviewers' panel, 2021.
    East Mediterr Health J; 2022 Jan; 28(1):81-89. PubMed ID: 35165883
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quality of medical journals with special reference to the Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal.
    Aly AM
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S18-20. PubMed ID: 14968186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Impact of Reviewers' Creditworthiness on Consumers' Purchase Intention in Edge Path: Implications for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.
    Limei C; Wei L
    Front Public Health; 2020; 8():619263. PubMed ID: 33363100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Alphabetic bias in the selection of reviewers for the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Richardson ML
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Dec; 191(6):W213-6. PubMed ID: 19020207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):137-8. PubMed ID: 8015125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Reviewers' Responses to Medical Research Articles.
    Sohail S; Akhtar J
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2019 Jan; 29(1):29-32. PubMed ID: 30630565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Responding to reviewers' comments as part of writing for publication.
    Happell B
    Nurse Res; 2011; 18(4):23-7. PubMed ID: 21853889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035600. PubMed ID: 32792429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: fallibility and accountability in the peer review process.
    Hojat M; Gonnella JS; Caelleigh AS
    Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2003; 8(1):75-96. PubMed ID: 12652170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Journal innovations, 2021 closure, and reviewers' gratitude.
    Reich Y
    Res Eng Des; 2022; 33(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 35095208
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Recognizing Our Experts:
    Wiechert K; Chapman JR; Wang JC
    Global Spine J; 2018 May; 8(3):217. PubMed ID: 29796367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.
    Assendelft WJ; Koes BW; Knipschild PG; Bouter LM
    JAMA; 1995 Dec; 274(24):1942-8. PubMed ID: 8568990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication.
    Lloyd ME
    J Appl Behav Anal; 1990; 23(4):539-43. PubMed ID: 16795738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Should reviewers' names be included at the end of journal papers?
    Stensel D
    J Sports Sci; 2005 May; 23(5):447. PubMed ID: 16194992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Chance, concurrence, and clustering. Analysis of reviewers' recommendations on 1,000 submissions to the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
    Scharschmidt BF; DeAmicis A; Bacchetti P; Held MJ
    J Clin Invest; 1994 May; 93(5):1877-80. PubMed ID: 8182120
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.