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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 39388125)

  • 1. To reduce editor bias and increase diversity and transparency, editors must be motivated: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
    Cowan N
    Am Psychol; 2024 Oct; 79(7):893-895. PubMed ID: 39388125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Editor bias and diversifying psychology: Commentary on Sharpe (2024).
    King LA
    Am Psychol; 2024 Oct; 79(7):896-897. PubMed ID: 39388126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Editor bias and transparency in psychology's open science era.
    Sharpe D
    Am Psychol; 2024 Oct; 79(7):883-892. PubMed ID: 39388124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. On editor bias and transparency: Reply to Cowan (2024), King (2024), and Thurston and Noor (2024).
    Sharpe D
    Am Psychol; 2024 Oct; 79(7):901-902. PubMed ID: 39388128
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer Review and Medical Journals.
    Nugent K; Peterson CJ
    J Prim Care Community Health; 2024; 15():21501319241252235. PubMed ID: 38682542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality and peer review of research: an adjudicating role for editors.
    Newton DP
    Account Res; 2010 May; 17(3):130-45. PubMed ID: 20461569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2019 Nov; 9(11):e033421. PubMed ID: 31767597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A survey of orthopaedic journal editors determining the criteria of manuscript selection for publication.
    Hing CB; Higgs D; Hooper L; Donell ST; Song F
    J Orthop Surg Res; 2011 Apr; 6():19. PubMed ID: 21527007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The publication of ethically uncertain research: attitudes and practices of journal editors.
    Angelski C; Fernandez CV; Weijer C; Gao J
    BMC Med Ethics; 2012 Apr; 13():4. PubMed ID: 22494972
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. World of wordcraft: on scientific editing.
    Martin A
    Acad Psychiatry; 2014 Feb; 38(1):86-9. PubMed ID: 24430591
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Editors' perspectives on the peer-review process in biomedical journals: protocol for a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2018 Oct; 8(10):e020568. PubMed ID: 30341111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Conflicts of interest for medical publishers and editors: protecting the integrity of scientific scholarship.
    Desai SS; Shortell CK
    J Vasc Surg; 2011 Sep; 54(3 Suppl):59S-63S. PubMed ID: 21872119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review.
    Hamilton DG; Fraser H; Hoekstra R; Fidler F
    Elife; 2020 Nov; 9():. PubMed ID: 33211009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Distinguishing Predatory from Reputable Publishing Practices.
    Happe LE
    J Manag Care Spec Pharm; 2020 Aug; 26(8):956-960. PubMed ID: 32715959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Survey of conflict-of-interest disclosure policies of ophthalmology journals.
    Anraku A; Jin YP; Trope GE; Buys YM
    Ophthalmology; 2009 Jun; 116(6):1093-6. PubMed ID: 19376583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.
    Galipeau J; Barbour V; Baskin P; Bell-Syer S; Cobey K; Cumpston M; Deeks J; Garner P; MacLehose H; Shamseer L; Straus S; Tugwell P; Wager E; Winker M; Moher D
    BMC Med; 2016 Feb; 14():16. PubMed ID: 26837937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Protecting peer review: correspondence chronology and ethical analysis regarding Logothetis vs. Shmuel and Leopold.
    Fox PT; Bullmore E; Bandettini PA; Lancaster JL
    Hum Brain Mapp; 2009 Feb; 30(2):347-54. PubMed ID: 19067328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Turkish health field periodical editors' Views on publication process and ethical problems.
    Pars H; Akın R; Sahin NE; Cinar S; Aslan F; Duygulu S
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2018 Mar; 21(3):264-270. PubMed ID: 29519971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Who reviews the reviewers? Who edits the editors? Many avenues for you to hold BJSM accountable.
    Khan KM; Pluim BM
    Br J Sports Med; 2015 Oct; 49(20):1287. PubMed ID: 26709402
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.