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 *

212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35278500)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals.
    Candal-Pedreira C; Rey-Brandariz J; Varela-Lema L; Pérez-Ríos M; Ruano-Ravina A
    An Pediatr (Engl Ed); 2023 Jul; 99(1):54-59. PubMed ID: 37349245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Manuscript rejection: how to submit a revision and tips on being a good peer reviewer.
    Kotsis SV; Chung KC
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2014 Apr; 133(4):958-964. PubMed ID: 24675196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Rules to be adopted for publishing a scientific paper.
    Picardi N
    Ann Ital Chir; 2016; 87():1-3. PubMed ID: 28474609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine.
    Forero DA; Lopez-Leon S; Perry G
    J Transl Med; 2020 Nov; 18(1):425. PubMed ID: 33167977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Scientific composition and review of manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed dental journals.
    Bayne SC; McGivney GP; Mazer SC
    J Prosthet Dent; 2003 Feb; 89(2):201-18. PubMed ID: 12616242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Guidelines for writing manuscripts about community-based participatory research for peer-reviewed journals.
    Bordeaux BC; Wiley C; Tandon SD; Horowitz CR; Brown PB; Bass EB
    Prog Community Health Partnersh; 2007; 1(3):281-8. PubMed ID: 20208291
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Writing biomedical manuscripts part I: fundamentals and general rules.
    Ohwovoriole AE
    West Afr J Med; 2011; 30(3):151-7. PubMed ID: 22120477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Peer review? No thanks!
    Castelo-Branco C
    Climacteric; 2023 Feb; 26(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 36420749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. How to be a good peer reviewer of scientific manuscripts.
    Dhillon P
    FEBS J; 2021 May; 288(9):2750-2756. PubMed ID: 33486891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Reviewing manuscripts for biomedical journals.
    Garmel GM
    Perm J; 2010; 14(1):32-40. PubMed ID: 20740129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    Shattell MM; Chinn P; Thomas SP; Cowling WR
    J Nurs Scholarsh; 2010 Mar; 42(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 20487187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [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]  

  • 19. Surviving peer review.
    Weinstein R
    J Clin Apher; 2020 Sep; 35(5):469-476. PubMed ID: 32770560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Content and communication: how can peer review provide helpful feedback about the writing?
    Shashok K
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2008 Jan; 8():3. PubMed ID: 18237378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.