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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7722151)

  • 1. Peer review or poor review?
    Parmley WW
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 1995 May; 25(6):1470-1. PubMed ID: 7722151
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Authors, industry, and review articles.
    DeMaria AN
    J Am Coll Cardiol; 2004 Mar; 43(6):1130-1. PubMed ID: 15028380
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. On cloning research, peer review and the possibility of fraud.
    Carrió I
    Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging; 2006 Mar; 33(3):235-6. PubMed ID: 16477432
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Where did the scientific method go?
    Noseda M; McLean GR
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):28-9. PubMed ID: 18183010
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Response to Where did the scientific method go?
    Nat Biotechnol; 2008 Jan; 26(1):29. PubMed ID: 18183012
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Addressing conflicts of interest and clouding of objectivity: BJSM's "peer review: fair review" section.
    Khan KM; Stovitz SD; Pluim B; Cook JL; Bahr R; Arendt EA; Noakes TD
    Br J Sports Med; 2008 Feb; 42(2):79. PubMed ID: 18256294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Spotlight on "peer-review": the noble foundation of scientific research.
    Bhandari S
    Indian Heart J; 2008; 60(2):159-60. PubMed ID: 19218730
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. "It's déjà vu all over again".
    Greenebaum B
    Bioelectromagnetics; 2003 Dec; 24(8):529-30. PubMed ID: 14603471
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Peer review and the rewards of open access.
    Newmark P
    Nature; 2003 Apr; 422(6933):661. PubMed ID: 12700733
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB; Maunsell JH;
    Neurosci Lett; 2009 Jun; 457(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19410133
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
    van Loon AJ
    Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Publishing in peer review journals--criteria for success.
    McIntyre E; Eckermann SL; Keane M; Magarey A; Roeger L
    Aust Fam Physician; 2007 Jul; 36(7):561-2. PubMed ID: 17619676
    [TBL] [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. 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]  

  • 16. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB
    Exp Neurol; 2009 Mar; 216(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19217967
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Beautification and fraud.
    Nat Cell Biol; 2006 Feb; 8(2):101-2. PubMed ID: 16450003
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The impact of the impact factor.
    Manske PR
    J Hand Surg Am; 2004 Nov; 29(6):983-6. PubMed ID: 15576205
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
    Jaffe K
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Without scientific integrity, there can be no evidence base.
    Jette AM
    Phys Ther; 2005 Nov; 85(11):1122-3. PubMed ID: 16253041
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.