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 *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38596927)

  • 1. Development and Validation of a Scoring Rubric for Editorial Evaluation of Peer-review Quality: A Pilot Study.
    Love JN; Messman AM; Ilgen JS; Merritt C; Coates WC; Ander DS; Way DP
    West J Emerg Med; 2024 Mar; 25(2):254-263. PubMed ID: 38596927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Norming a VALUE rubric to assess graduate information literacy skills.
    Turbow DJ; Evener J
    J Med Libr Assoc; 2016 Jul; 104(3):209-14. PubMed ID: 27366121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Developing a scoring rubric for resident research presentations: a pilot study.
    Musial JL; Rubinfeld IS; Parker AO; Reickert CA; Adams SA; Rao S; Shepard AD
    J Surg Res; 2007 Oct; 142(2):304-7. PubMed ID: 17719066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Constructing validity evidence from a pilot key-features assessment of clinical decision-making in cerebral palsy diagnosis: application of Kane's validity framework to implementation evaluations.
    McNamara LM; Scott KM; Boyd RN; Farmer EA; Webb AE; Novak IE
    BMC Med Educ; 2023 Sep; 23(1):668. PubMed ID: 37710200
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Developing a peer assessment of lecturing instrument: lessons learned.
    Newman LR; Lown BA; Jones RN; Johansson A; Schwartzstein RM
    Acad Med; 2009 Aug; 84(8):1104-10. PubMed ID: 19638781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. What Does It Take to Change an Editor's Mind? Identifying Minimally Important Difference Thresholds for Peer Reviewer Rating Scores of Scientific Articles.
    Callaham M; John LK
    Ann Emerg Med; 2018 Sep; 72(3):314-318.e2. PubMed ID: 29310871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Re: Journal Standards - Editor's reply.
    Jolly PD
    N Z Vet J; 2003 Aug; 51(4):199. PubMed ID: 16032326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Science, politics, and peer review. An editor's dilemma.
    McCarty R
    Am Psychol; 2002 Mar; 57(3):198-201. PubMed ID: 11905119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. A New Teaching Tool for Peer Review of Charting and Care in the Emergency Department.
    Baer H; Satnick D; McHugh J; Loo G; Legome E
    Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf; 2023 Feb; 49(2):105-110. PubMed ID: 36529665
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Development and Validation of a Tool to Evaluate the Evolution of Clinical Reasoning in Trauma Using Virtual Patients.
    Fleiszer D; Hoover ML; Posel N; Razek T; Bergman S
    J Surg Educ; 2018; 75(3):779-786. PubMed ID: 28927667
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Effect of attendance at a training session on peer reviewer quality and performance.
    Callaham ML; Wears RL; Waeckerle JF
    Ann Emerg Med; 1998 Sep; 32(3 Pt 1):318-22. PubMed ID: 9737493
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A Collaborative Approach to Mentored Peer Reviews Sponsored by the Council of Residency Directors in Emergency Medicine.
    Love JN; Merritt C; Ilgen JS; Messman AM; Way DP; Ander DS; Coates WC
    West J Emerg Med; 2024 Jan; 25(1):111-116. PubMed ID: 38205992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Measuring Assessment Quality With an Assessment Utility Rubric for Medical Education.
    Colbert-Getz JM; Ryan M; Hennessey E; Lindeman B; Pitts B; Rutherford KA; Schwengel D; Sozio SM; George J; Jung J
    MedEdPORTAL; 2017 May; 13():10588. PubMed ID: 30800790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors.
    Davis RM; Müllner M
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2002 Oct; 8(4):513-28. PubMed ID: 12501720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Write a scientific paper (WASP): Editor's perspective of submissions and dealing with editors.
    Cuschieri S; Vassallo J
    Early Hum Dev; 2019 Feb; 129():93-95. PubMed ID: 30578111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.
    Oehrlein EM; Graff JS; Perfetto EM; Mullins CD; Dubois RW; Anyanwu C; Onukwugha E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(1):111-119. PubMed ID: 29415784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions.
    Kumar P; Ravindra A; Wang Y; Belli DC; Heyman MB; Gupta SK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2021 Nov; 73(5):567-571. PubMed ID: 34173794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.