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 *

402 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7555893)

  • 1. Peer review and refereeing in science.
    Lore W
    East Afr Med J; 1995 May; 72(5):335-7. PubMed ID: 7555893
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Structure and format of peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts.
    Manske PR
    J Hand Surg Am; 2006 Sep; 31(7):1051-5. PubMed ID: 16945702
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):252. PubMed ID: 16421533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Journals: impact factors are too highly valued.
    Davies J
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):210. PubMed ID: 12529611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Journals: how to decide what's worth publishing.
    Jefferson T; Shashok K
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209-10. PubMed ID: 12529609
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Translation of the scientific method... Peer review.
    Scarfe WC
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Apr; 109(4):485-7. PubMed ID: 20176497
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside.
    Fisher RS; Powers LE
    Epilepsia; 2004 Aug; 45(8):889-94. PubMed ID: 15270753
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Three cheers for peers.
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7073):118. PubMed ID: 16407911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
    Adam D; Knight J
    Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The politics of publication.
    Lawrence PA
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6929):259-61. PubMed ID: 12646895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Learning to review.
    Freedman R
    J Clin Psychiatry; 2009 Nov; 70(11):1599-600. PubMed ID: 20031100
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The dangers of advocacy in science.
    Gitzen RA
    Science; 2007 Aug; 317(5839):748. PubMed ID: 17690275
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The peer review process II: to review and be reviewed.
    Riss P
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 May; 23(5):513-4. PubMed ID: 21901437
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A look inside the Pharos review process.
    Harris ED
    Pharos Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Med Soc; 2003; 66(2):36-7. PubMed ID: 12838637
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review should continue after publication.
    Liesegang TJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2010 Mar; 149(3):359-60. PubMed ID: 20172061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. We are delighted to have received 273 replies from reviewers specifying their subspecialty interests. Introduction.
    Frank JD; Mouriquand P; Caldamone A; Malone PS
    J Pediatr Urol; 2012 Jun; 8(3):223. PubMed ID: 22583554
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The real dirty secret of academic publishing.
    Svetlov V
    Nature; 2004 Oct; 431(7011):897. PubMed ID: 15496892
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Confidential reports may improve peer review.
    Cintas P
    Nature; 2004 Mar; 428(6980):255. PubMed ID: 15029169
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Pressure also leads to worthless publications.
    de Carvalho LB
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):784. PubMed ID: 16482133
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB; Maunsell JH
    Neuroinformatics; 2009 Jun; 7(2):89-91. PubMed ID: 19172416
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.