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 *

151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36914773)

  • 1. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups.
    Smith OM; Davis KL; Pizza RB; Waterman R; Dobson KC; Foster B; Jarvey JC; Jones LN; Leuenberger W; Nourn N; Conway EE; Fiser CM; Hansen ZA; Hristova A; Mack C; Saunders AN; Utley OJ; Young ML; Davis CL
    Nat Ecol Evol; 2023 Apr; 7(4):512-523. PubMed ID: 36914773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3.
    Verharen JPH
    Elife; 2023 Nov; 12():. PubMed ID: 37922198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?
    Cássia-Silva C; Silva Rocha B; Fernanda Liévano-Latorre L; Sobreiro MB; Diele-Viegas LM
    PeerJ; 2023; 11():e15186. PubMed ID: 37065686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Uptake and outcome of manuscripts in Nature journals by review model and author characteristics.
    McGillivray B; De Ranieri E
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2018; 3():5. PubMed ID: 30140448
    [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. Prospective analyses of sex/gender-related publication decisions in general medical journals: editorial rejection of population-based women's reproductive physiology.
    Kalidasan D; Goshtasebi A; Chrisler J; Brown HL; Prior JC
    BMJ Open; 2022 Feb; 12(2):e057854. PubMed ID: 35217542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution.
    Fox CW; Paine CET
    Ecol Evol; 2019 Mar; 9(6):3599-3619. PubMed ID: 30962913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Gender differences in authorships are not associated with publication bias in an evolutionary journal.
    Edwards HA; Schroeder J; Dugdale HL
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0201725. PubMed ID: 30157231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Gender and Geographic Origin as Determinants of Manuscript Publication Outcomes: JBMR® Bibliometric Analysis from 2017 to 2019.
    Rivadeneira F; Loder RT; McGuire AC; Chitwood JR; Duffy K; Civitelli R; Kacena MA; Westendorf JJ
    J Bone Miner Res; 2022 Dec; 37(12):2420-2434. PubMed ID: 36063372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The cases for and against double-blind reviews.
    Cox AR; Montgomerie R
    PeerJ; 2019; 7():e6702. PubMed ID: 30972261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.
    Budden AE; Tregenza T; Aarssen LW; Koricheva J; Leimu R; Lortie CJ
    Trends Ecol Evol; 2008 Jan; 23(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 17963996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices.
    Faggion CM
    Account Res; 2023 Dec; 30(7):459-470. PubMed ID: 35016571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Blind versus nonblind review: survey of selected medical journals.
    Cleary JD; Alexander B
    Drug Intell Clin Pharm; 1988; 22(7-8):601-2. PubMed ID: 3416750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ladies First? Not So Fast: Linguistic Sexism in Peer-Reviewed Research.
    Willis M; Jozkowski KN
    J Sex Res; 2018 Feb; 55(2):137-145. PubMed ID: 28753394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Double- vs single-blind peer review effect on acceptance rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
    Ucci MA; D'Antonio F; Berghella V
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2022 Jul; 4(4):100645. PubMed ID: 35430413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Despite Growing Number of Women Surgeons, Authorship Gender Disparity in Orthopaedic Literature Persists Over 30 Years.
    Brown MA; Erdman MK; Munger AM; Miller AN
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Jul; 478(7):1542-1552. PubMed ID: 31283733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.
    Tricco AC; Thomas SM; Antony J; Rios P; Robson R; Pattani R; Ghassemi M; Sullivan S; Selvaratnam I; Tannenbaum C; Straus SE
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0169718. PubMed ID: 28061509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.
    Tomkins A; Zhang M; Heavlin WD
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2017 Nov; 114(48):12708-12713. PubMed ID: 29138317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.