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 *

316 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7838231)

  • 61. Fraud inquiry leaves online paper in the ether.
    Brumfiel G
    Nature; 2002 Aug; 418(6901):907. PubMed ID: 12198509
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. How to cope with manuscript rejection.
    Peregrin T
    J Am Diet Assoc; 2007 Feb; 107(2):190, 192-3. PubMed ID: 17258951
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Peer review and fraud.
    Nature; 2006 Dec; 444(7122):971-2. PubMed ID: 17183274
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. The trouble with replication.
    Giles J
    Nature; 2006 Jul; 442(7101):344-7. PubMed ID: 16871184
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. [Which scientific article is best qualified for publication?].
    Barzilai M
    Harefuah; 1997 Jul; 133(1-2):25-6. PubMed ID: 9332053
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Cancer fraud case stuns research community, prompts reflection on peer review process.
    Vastag B
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Mar; 98(6):374-6. PubMed ID: 16537825
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Duplicate publishing and the least publishable unit.
    Gleeson M; Biddle S
    J Sports Sci; 2000 Apr; 18(4):227-8. PubMed ID: 10824638
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. [The moral of Tartuffe?].
    Morbidoni HR; Leotta GA
    Rev Argent Microbiol; 2010; 42(2):85-6. PubMed ID: 20589325
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING. PubPeer co-founder reveals identity—and new plans.
    Couzin-Frankel J
    Science; 2015 Sep; 349(6252):1036. PubMed ID: 26339005
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Heaven or hell: publishing and revision.
    Enns JT
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2012 Feb; 38(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 22288698
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Journal peer review.
    N Engl J Med; 1985 Aug; 313(7):455-6. PubMed ID: 4022077
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Each year more than 1,000 manuscripts are submitted for our consideration.
    Soc Sci Med; 1989; 29(7):I-II. PubMed ID: 2799420
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. Peer review.
    Nature; 1989 Sep; 341(6240):275. PubMed ID: 2797137
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Science will tighten standards after retracting stem cell papers.
    Tanne JH
    BMJ; 2006 Dec; 333(7580):1189. PubMed ID: 17158370
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Publishing as an Indicator of Scientific Research Quality and Ethics: The Case of Law Journals from Moldova.
    Moldoveanu B; Cuciureanu G
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):1039-1052. PubMed ID: 32040831
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Peer review.
    Hershey DR
    Nature; 1989 Aug; 340(6233):424. PubMed ID: 2755503
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Support for peer review.
    Nat Immunol; 2010 Dec; 11(12):1063. PubMed ID: 21079625
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Can scientific quality be quantified?
    Loscalzo J
    Circulation; 2011 Mar; 123(9):947-50. PubMed ID: 21382902
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. The Art of Peer Review.
    Fraser D
    Neonatal Netw; 2018 Jul; 37(4):195-196. PubMed ID: 30567915
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Peer review in scientific journals--what good is it?
    Relman AS
    West J Med; 1990 Nov; 153(5):520-2. PubMed ID: 2260288
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 16.