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 *

453 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8015127)

  • 21. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.
    Chauvin A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Barnes C; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2015 Jul; 13():158. PubMed ID: 26141137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):137-8. PubMed ID: 8015125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process.
    Earnshaw JJ; Farndon JR; Guillou PJ; Johnson CD; Murie JA; Murray GD
    Ann R Coll Surg Engl; 2000 Apr; 82(4 Suppl):133-5. PubMed ID: 10889776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
    Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
    Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
    McNutt RA; Evans AT; Fletcher RH; Fletcher SW
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1371-6. PubMed ID: 2304216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews.
    Evans AT; McNutt RA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 Aug; 8(8):422-8. PubMed ID: 8410407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    Etemadi A; Raiszadeh F; Alaeddini F; Azizi F
    Saudi Med J; 2004 Jan; 25(1 Suppl):S29-33. PubMed ID: 14968189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Is Double-Blinded Peer Review Necessary? The Effect of Blinding on Review Quality.
    Chung KC; Shauver MJ; Malay S; Zhong L; Weinstein A; Rohrich RJ
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2015 Dec; 136(6):1369-1377. PubMed ID: 26273735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Efficacy of Double-Blind Peer Review in an Imaging Subspecialty Journal.
    O'Connor EE; Cousar M; Lentini JA; Castillo M; Halm K; Zeffiro TA
    AJNR Am J Neuroradiol; 2017 Feb; 38(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 27856433
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
    Wade D; Tennant A
    Clin Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 18(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 15053119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Peer-review and editorial process of the Ethiopian Medical Journal: ten years assessment of the status of submitted manuscripts.
    Enquselassie F
    Ethiop Med J; 2013 Apr; 51(2):95-103. PubMed ID: 24079153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Author perception of peer review.
    Gibson M; Spong CY; Simonsen SE; Martin S; Scott JR
    Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Sep; 112(3):646-52. PubMed ID: 18757664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.
    Bingham CM; Higgins G; Coleman R; Van Der Weyden MB
    Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9126):441-5. PubMed ID: 9708752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Black N; Smith R
    BMJ; 1999 Jan; 318(7175):23-7. PubMed ID: 9872878
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial.
    John LK; Loewenstein G; Marder A; Callaham ML
    BMJ; 2019 Nov; 367():l5896. PubMed ID: 31694810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 23.