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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38766586)

  • 21. Ethical issues in studying submissions to a medical journal.
    Olson CM; Glass RM; Thacker SB; Stroup DF
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):290-1. PubMed ID: 9676686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The fate of manuscripts rejected by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume).
    Okike K; Kocher MS; Nwachukwu BU; Mehlman CT; Heckman JD; Bhandari M
    J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2012 Sep; 94(17):e130. PubMed ID: 22992859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The fate of manuscripts rejected by a general medical journal.
    Ray J; Berkwits M; Davidoff F
    Am J Med; 2000 Aug; 109(2):131-5. PubMed ID: 10967154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals.
    Ezeala C; Nweke I; Ezeala M
    Ann Med Health Sci Res; 2013 Jul; 3(3):376-9. PubMed ID: 24116317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Fate of submitted manuscripts rejected from the American Journal of Neuroradiology: outcomes and commentary.
    McDonald RJ; Cloft HJ; Kallmes DF
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2007 Sep; 28(8):1430-4. PubMed ID: 17846185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Assessing peer review by gauging the fate of rejected manuscripts: the case of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.
    Casnici N; Grimaldo F; Gilbert N; Dondio P; Squazzoni F
    Scientometrics; 2017; 113(1):533-546. PubMed ID: 29056789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Acceptance rate and reasons for rejection of manuscripts submitted to Veterinary Radiology & Ultrasound during 2012.
    Lamb CR; Mai W
    Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2015; 56(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 24798652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Impact of study outcome on submission and acceptance metrics for peer reviewed medical journals: six year retrospective review of all completed GlaxoSmithKline human drug research studies.
    Evoniuk G; Mansi B; DeCastro B; Sykes J
    BMJ; 2017 Apr; 357():j1726. PubMed ID: 28432051
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. "Why We Say No! A Look Through the Editor's Eye".
    Garg A; Das S; Jain H
    J Clin Diagn Res; 2015 Oct; 9(10):JB01-5. PubMed ID: 26557542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Implementation Science six years on--our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review.
    Eccles MP; Foy R; Sales A; Wensing M; Mittman B
    Implement Sci; 2012 Jul; 7():71. PubMed ID: 22839967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The fate of epidemiologic manuscripts: a study of papers submitted to epidemiology.
    Hall SA; Wilcox AJ
    Epidemiology; 2007 Mar; 18(2):262-5. PubMed ID: 17301708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology between 2002 and 2003.
    Liesegang TJ; Shaikh M; Crook JE
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2007 Apr; 143(4):551-60. PubMed ID: 17276380
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts.
    Abby M; Massey MD; Galandiuk S; Polk HC
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):105-7. PubMed ID: 8015116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey.
    Grossetta Nardini HK; Batten J; Funaro MC; Garcia-Milian R; Nyhan K; Spak JM; Wang L; Glover JG
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2019; 4():23. PubMed ID: 31798974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The relationship between a reviewer's recommendation and editorial decision of manuscripts submitted for publication in obstetrics.
    Vintzileos AM; Ananth CV; Odibo AO; Chauhan SP; Smulian JC; Oyelese Y
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Dec; 211(6):703.e1-5. PubMed ID: 24983685
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Fate of manuscripts rejected from the Red Journal.
    Holliday EB; Yang G; Jagsi R; Hoffman KE; Bennett KE; Grace C; Zietman AL
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2015 Jan; 91(1):3-10. PubMed ID: 25835616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [The ultimate fate of articles rejected for publication in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde].
    Koene HR; Overbeke AJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1994 Dec; 138(49):2443-6. PubMed ID: 7997300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. The factors considered by editors of plastic surgery journals in evaluating submitted manuscripts.
    Caulfield RH; Maleki-Tabrizi A; Pleat JM; Tyler MP
    Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2008 Mar; 32(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 18058163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.