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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8181252)

  • 1. Diabetic medicine.
    Boulton AJ
    Diabet Med; 1994; 11(1):5. PubMed ID: 8181252
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 3. Does editorial peer review work?
    Lock S
    Ann Intern Med; 1994 Jul; 121(1):60-1. PubMed ID: 8198351
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts.
    Frey JJ
    Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Enhancements in peer review of manuscripts by the Journal.
    Liesegang TJ
    Am J Ophthalmol; 2014 Jul; 158(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 24929824
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer Review of Scholarly Work.
    Brandon D; McGrath JM
    Adv Neonatal Care; 2018 Dec; 18(6):423-424. PubMed ID: 30499821
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The peer review process: Giving and receiving advice.
    Jull G; Moore A
    Musculoskelet Sci Pract; 2019 Apr; 40():v. PubMed ID: 30773425
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Making the most of peer review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2000 Jul; 3(7):629. PubMed ID: 10862686
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Article review process.
    Burr G
    Confed Aust Crit Care Nurses J; 1991 Sep; 4(3):17. PubMed ID: 1912646
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. More than 1000 new manuscripts in 2017.
    Glimelius B
    Acta Oncol; 2018 Feb; 57(2):174-175. PubMed ID: 29303398
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The discourteous reviewer.
    Leviton A
    Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 2007 Jan; 21(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 17239173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Perfecting peer review?
    Nat Med; 2011 Jan; 17(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 21217648
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How does peer review work?
    Aaron L
    Radiol Technol; 2008; 79(6):553-4. PubMed ID: 18650531
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Diversity, debate, and discourse.
    Haller KB
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1991; 20(4):283. PubMed ID: 1941289
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peering into the review process.
    Nat Struct Biol; 2000 Dec; 7(12):1075-6. PubMed ID: 11101879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Farther, faster, and (hopefully) better!
    Link AM; LaRusso NF
    Gastroenterology; 1992 Sep; 103(3):1099-101. PubMed ID: 1499911
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Predatory publishers.
    Odom-Forren J
    J Perianesth Nurs; 2015 Apr; 30(2):87. PubMed ID: 25813294
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Journalistic rights, and wrongs.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 1999 Sep; 99(9):7. PubMed ID: 10489568
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Medical editor lambasts journals and editors.
    Smith R
    BMJ; 2001 Sep; 323(7314):651. PubMed ID: 11566822
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. What can authors do for the papers they published in predatory journals?
    Dadkhah M; Darbani SM
    Pol Arch Med Wewn; 2016 Aug; 126(7-8):574-5. PubMed ID: 27510167
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.