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 *

202 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36407275)

  • 1. Investing in the Academic Writing: Training Future Reviewers and Sustaining Efficient and Quality Peer Review.
    Munasinghe BM; Chapman C; Hewavitharane C; Hewawasam G; Dissanayakege TG
    Cureus; 2022 Oct; 14(10):e30341. PubMed ID: 36407275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community.
    Buser JM; Morris KL; Millicent Dzomeku V; Endale T; Smith YR; August E
    BMJ Glob Health; 2023 Apr; 8(4):. PubMed ID: 37185299
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is expert peer review obsolete? A model suggests that post-publication reader review may exceed the accuracy of traditional peer review.
    Herron DM
    Surg Endosc; 2012 Aug; 26(8):2275-80. PubMed ID: 22350231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.
    Kowalczuk MK; Dudbridge F; Nanda S; Harriman SL; Patel J; Moylan EC
    BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008707. PubMed ID: 26423855
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. We need to talk about peer-review-Experienced reviewers are not endangered species, but they need motivation.
    Ellwanger JH; Chies JAB
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Sep; 125():201-205. PubMed ID: 32061827
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. An Empirical Assessment of Reviewer 2.
    Worsham C; Woo J; Zimerman A; Bray CF; Jena AB
    Inquiry; 2022; 59():469580221090393. PubMed ID: 35506674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Manuscript review continuing medical education: a retrospective investigation of the learning outcomes from this peer reviewer benefit.
    Kawczak S; Mustafa S
    BMJ Open; 2020 Nov; 10(11):e039687. PubMed ID: 33234636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Bridging the Otolaryngology Peer Review Knowledge Gap: A Call for a Residency Development Program.
    Schmalbach CE
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2016 Jul; 155(1):6-7. PubMed ID: 27371618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review and the publication process.
    Ali PA; Watson R
    Nurs Open; 2016 Oct; 3(4):193-202. PubMed ID: 27708830
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
    Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer reviewer training and editor support: results from an international survey of nursing peer reviewers.
    Freda MC; Kearney MH; Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty M
    J Prof Nurs; 2009; 25(2):101-8. PubMed ID: 19306833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The Peer Review Process.
    Willis LD
    Respir Care; 2024 Mar; 69(4):492-499. PubMed ID: 38538018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts.
    Stephen D
    Scientometrics; 2022; 127(6):3413-3435. PubMed ID: 35431366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.