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 *

165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35699352)

  • 1. Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies.
    Rosman T; Bosnjak M; Silber H; Koßmann J; Heycke T
    Public Underst Sci; 2022 Nov; 31(8):1046-1062. PubMed ID: 35699352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Do Open-Science Badges Increase Trust in Scientists Among Undergraduates, Scientists, and the Public?
    Schneider J; Rosman T; Kelava A; Merk S
    Psychol Sci; 2022 Sep; 33(9):1588-1604. PubMed ID: 36001881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Open Access Publishing in the Field of Medical Informatics.
    Kuballa S
    J Med Syst; 2017 May; 41(5):82. PubMed ID: 28365898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Openness in science is key to keeping public trust.
    Yarborough M
    Nature; 2014 Nov; 515(7527):313. PubMed ID: 25409791
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Bromme R; Mede NG; Thomm E; Kremer B; Ziegler R
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(2):e0262823. PubMed ID: 35139103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Best practices in nutrition science to earn and keep the public's trust.
    Garza C; Stover PJ; Ohlhorst SD; Field MS; Steinbrook R; Rowe S; Woteki C; Campbell E
    Am J Clin Nutr; 2019 Jan; 109(1):225-243. PubMed ID: 30657846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. How open science helps researchers succeed.
    McKiernan EC; Bourne PE; Brown CT; Buck S; Kenall A; Lin J; McDougall D; Nosek BA; Ram K; Soderberg CK; Spies JR; Thaney K; Updegrove A; Woo KH; Yarkoni T
    Elife; 2016 Jul; 5():. PubMed ID: 27387362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review.
    Severin A; Egger M; Eve MP; Hürlimann D
    F1000Res; 2018; 7():1925. PubMed ID: 32399178
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Hype and public trust in science.
    Master Z; Resnik DB
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2013 Jun; 19(2):321-35. PubMed ID: 22045550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies.
    Myers TA; Kotcher J; Stenhouse N; Anderson AA; Maibach E; Beall L; Leiserowitz A
    Public Underst Sci; 2017 Oct; 26(7):843-860. PubMed ID: 26960910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Open Science Practices in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Survey.
    El Amin M; Borders JC; Long HL; Keller MA; Kearney E
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2023 Jun; 66(6):1928-1947. PubMed ID: 36417765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Co-produced data: open access tests trust.
    Stroud JL
    Nature; 2018 Oct; 562(7727):344. PubMed ID: 30333586
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming.
    Hmielowski JD; Feldman L; Myers TA; Leiserowitz A; Maibach E
    Public Underst Sci; 2014 Oct; 23(7):866-83. PubMed ID: 23825287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers.
    Critchley CR
    Public Underst Sci; 2008 Jul; 17(3):309-27. PubMed ID: 19069082
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration.
    Ng JY; Wieland LS; Lee MS; Liu JP; Witt CM; Moher D; Cramer H
    Integr Med Res; 2024 Jun; 13(2):101047. PubMed ID: 38799120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The need for standardisation in life science research - an approach to excellence and trust.
    Hollmann S; Kremer A; Baebler Š; Trefois C; Gruden K; Rudnicki WR; Tong W; Gruca A; Bongcam-Rudloff E; Evelo CT; Nechyporenko A; Frohme M; Šafránek D; Regierer B; D'Elia D
    F1000Res; 2020; 9():1398. PubMed ID: 33604028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evoking vigilance: Would you (dis)trust a scientist who discusses ethical implications of research in a science blog?
    Hendriks F; Kienhues D; Bromme R
    Public Underst Sci; 2016 Nov; 25(8):992-1008. PubMed ID: 27150266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. When will 'open science' become simply 'science'?
    Watson M
    Genome Biol; 2015 May; 16(1):101. PubMed ID: 25986601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit.
    Cortassa C
    Public Underst Sci; 2016 May; 25(4):447-59. PubMed ID: 27117772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Measuring the perceived uncertainty of scientific evidence and its relationship to engagement with science.
    Retzbach J; Otto L; Maier M
    Public Underst Sci; 2016 Aug; 25(6):638-55. PubMed ID: 25814513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.