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 *

139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7726010)

  • 1. Manuscript peer review at the AJR: facts, figures, and quality assessment.
    Friedman DP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Apr; 164(4):1007-9. PubMed ID: 7726010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR.
    Chew FS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Mar; 156(3):627-32. PubMed ID: 1899764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Proposal of a method for deciding whether an AJR manuscript merits publication: The 25% rule.
    Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):278-80. PubMed ID: 20651181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality science and quality assurance: observations of an environmental scientist.
    Hughes TJ
    Qual Assur; 1999; 7(4):225-35. PubMed ID: 11191123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Decline to Review a Manuscript: Insight and Implications for
    Raniga SB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Apr; 214(4):723-726. PubMed ID: 31967499
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Preserving blind peer review of electronic manuscript files.
    Jacobson AF; Schmidt K; Coeling H
    Nurse Author Ed; 2005; 15(1):1-4, 7. PubMed ID: 15739759
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The examination of peer review and publication in neurology.
    Wong VS
    J Child Neurol; 2010 Oct; 25(10):1298-301. PubMed ID: 20606060
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peering into peer review: Galileo, ESP, Dr Scott Reuben, and advancing our professional evolution.
    Biddle C
    AANA J; 2011 Oct; 79(5):365-6. PubMed ID: 23256263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
    Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
    Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1415-7. PubMed ID: 12438028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Open access mandate threatens dissemination of scientific information.
    McMullan E
    J Neuroophthalmol; 2008 Mar; 28(1):72-4. PubMed ID: 18347464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peering Into Peer Review:
    Provenzale JM; Buch K; Filippi CG; Gaskill-Shipley M; Hacein-Bey L; Soares BP
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Jan; 214(1):45-49. PubMed ID: 31670589
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Financial support for research in radiology: a survey of original investigations published in the AJR and Radiology.
    Mussurakis S
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Oct; 163(4):973-9; discussion 981-2. PubMed ID: 8092046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. AJR reviewers: We need to continue to improve our education and monitoring methods!
    Berquist TH
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jun; 200(6):1179-80. PubMed ID: 23701050
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The role of the manuscript reviewer in the peer review process.
    Polak JF
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):685-8. PubMed ID: 7645496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Scientific and statistical reviews of manuscripts submitted to Nursing Research: Comparison of completeness, quality, and usefulness.
    Henly SJ; Bennett JA; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2010; 58(4):188-99. PubMed ID: 20637932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Radiology 2016: The Care and Scientific Rigor Used to Process and Evaluate Original Research Manuscripts for Publication.
    Levine D; Kressel HY
    Radiology; 2016 Jan; 278(1):6-10. PubMed ID: 26690988
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.