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 *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8807367)

  • 1. The value of nursing journals.
    Smith JP
    J Adv Nurs; 1996 Jul; 24(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 8807367
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. How does the peer review process influence AANA journal article readability?
    Biddle C; Aker J
    AANA J; 1996 Feb; 64(1):65-8. PubMed ID: 8928603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Peer review and the nursing literature.
    Dougherty MC
    Nurs Res; 2009; 58(2):73. PubMed ID: 19289927
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Accept or reject?
    Martin SA
    J Pediatr Health Care; 2010; 24(3):141-2. PubMed ID: 20417885
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Are we satisfied with the way we review an article?
    Aslam M; Burris HH; Zupancic JA
    Adv Neonatal Care; 2009 Feb; 9(1):40-2. PubMed ID: 19212165
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Conceptual debates and empirical evidence about the peer review process for scholarly journals.
    Thomas SP
    J Prof Nurs; 2011; 27(3):168-73. PubMed ID: 21596357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer-reviewed publication output of psychiatric nurses in the Republic of Ireland.
    Higgins A; Farrelly M
    J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs; 2007 Aug; 14(5):495-502. PubMed ID: 17635258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Consider the source.
    Mason DJ
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Apr; 109(4):7. PubMed ID: 19325281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Communicating the evidence.
    Bryan-Brown CW; Dracup K
    Am J Crit Care; 1998 Sep; 7(5):330-1. PubMed ID: 9740881
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Advice for authors. Four principal reasons for manuscript rejection].
    Clarke SP
    Perspect Infirm; 2006; 3(3):35-9. PubMed ID: 16480058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [New ways].
    Balzer K
    Pflege Z; 2008 Jan; 61(1):1. PubMed ID: 18251185
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [The ideal medical journal in the age of IT].
    Nylenna M
    Lakartidningen; 2004 Jan; 101(1-2):60-3. PubMed ID: 14763006
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A rose by any other name is still a rose: assessing journal quality.
    Broome ME
    Nurs Outlook; 2007; 55(4):163-4. PubMed ID: 17678678
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Citation analysis of the maternal/child nursing literature.
    Oermann MH; Blair DA; Kowalewski K; Wilmes NA; Nordstrom CK
    Pediatr Nurs; 2007; 33(5):387-91. PubMed ID: 18041326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals.
    Baggs JG; Broome ME; Dougherty MC; Freda MC; Kearney MH
    J Adv Nurs; 2008 Oct; 64(2):131-8. PubMed ID: 18764847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.
    Saper CB
    Exp Neurol; 2009 Mar; 216(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19217967
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 18. Perceived journal quality: an indicator of research quality.
    Fahy K; Fenwick J
    Women Birth; 2008 Sep; 21(3):97-8. PubMed ID: 18657498
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reviewing peer review: the three reviewers you meet at submission time.
    Clarke SP
    Can J Nurs Res; 2006 Dec; 38(4):5-9. PubMed ID: 17342873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
    Kennedy MS
    Am J Nurs; 2009 Dec; 109(12):7. PubMed ID: 19935148
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.