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 *

173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8255342)

  • 1. [Peer review: the all-seeing eye].
    Offerhaus L
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1993 Nov; 137(45):2331-3. PubMed ID: 8255342
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Scientific misconduct.
    Sundaram M; Rosenthal DI; Hodler J
    Skeletal Radiol; 2007 Mar; 36(3):179. PubMed ID: 17205322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review and scientific misconduct: bad authors and trusting reviewers.
    Malay DS
    J Foot Ankle Surg; 2009; 48(3):283-4. PubMed ID: 19423027
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Should journals police scientific fraud?
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7076):520-1. PubMed ID: 16452946
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer-reviewed publication: a view from inside.
    Fisher RS; Powers LE
    Epilepsia; 2004 Aug; 45(8):889-94. PubMed ID: 15270753
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Scientific misconduct, stem cells, and the way ahead.
    Lindblad WJ
    Wound Repair Regen; 2006; 14(2):101. PubMed ID: 16630096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Retractions' realities.
    Nature; 2003 Mar; 422(6927):1. PubMed ID: 12621394
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Hwang case review committee misses the mark.
    Rossner M
    J Cell Biol; 2007 Jan; 176(2):131-2. PubMed ID: 17210952
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Reflections on scientific fraud.
    Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6906):417. PubMed ID: 12368816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bad peer reviewers.
    Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):93. PubMed ID: 11557930
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Journals under pressure: publish, and be damned.
    Adam D; Knight J
    Nature; 2002 Oct; 419(6909):772-6. PubMed ID: 12397323
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The petty crimes perpetuated by academia: scientific literature's death by a thousand cuts.
    Slade E; Tamber PS
    Menopause Int; 2007 Sep; 13(3):95-7. PubMed ID: 17785034
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Doctor admits Lancet study is fiction.
    Marris E
    Nature; 2006 Jan; 439(7074):248-9. PubMed ID: 16421528
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Journals should set a new standard in transparency.
    Dellavalle RP; Lundahl K; Freeman SR; Schilling LM
    Nature; 2007 Jan; 445(7126):364. PubMed ID: 17251958
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Journals: redundant publications are bad news.
    Mojon-Azzi SM; Jiang X; Wagner U; Mojon DS
    Nature; 2003 Jan; 421(6920):209. PubMed ID: 12529610
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The manuscript review process.
    Triadafilopoulos G
    Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Dec; 64(6 Suppl):S23-5. PubMed ID: 17113850
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peers under pressure.
    Dalton R
    Nature; 2001 Sep; 413(6852):102-4. PubMed ID: 11557944
    [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 9.