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 *

103 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9278036)

  • 1. Peer review is a two-way process.
    Fielder A; Vinyard H
    Nature; 1997 Aug; 388(6645):822. PubMed ID: 9278036
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. No evidence of sexism in peer review.
    Grant J; Burden S; Breen G
    Nature; 1997 Dec; 390(6659):438. PubMed ID: 9393992
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Staying on the mark: a review of grant evaluation.
    Doermann H
    Found News; 1982; 23(3):4-7. PubMed ID: 10255511
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Peer review is a two-way process.
    Grant D
    Nature; 1997 Aug; 388(6645):822. PubMed ID: 9278037
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Peer review: a call for help.
    Dickson D
    Nature; 1994 Dec; 372(6507):597. PubMed ID: 7990944
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The secrets of success.
    Smaglik P
    Nature; 2004 Nov; 432(7014):253. PubMed ID: 15538377
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Funding: the research revolution.
    Brumfiel G
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7198):975-6. PubMed ID: 18563124
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. New rules propose greater scrutiny for NIH grant recipients.
    Dove A
    Nat Med; 2006 Jan; 12(1):5. PubMed ID: 16397535
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. German paper chase to end.
    Schiermeier Q
    Nature; 2010 Feb; 463(7284):1009. PubMed ID: 20182483
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Researchers face 'Catch-22' grants trap.
    Ibáñez CF
    Nature; 1999 Mar; 398(6725):280. PubMed ID: 10192324
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NIH pilots faster feedback for grant resubmissions.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 1997 Oct; 389(6654):898. PubMed ID: 9353109
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Peer review and scientific method in clinical research.
    Morgan PP
    Can Med Assoc J; 1981 Feb; 124(3):251-3. PubMed ID: 7459784
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer review and third party prepayment. Does third party involvement require peer review?
    Downes WG
    J Tenn State Dent Assoc; 1972 Apr; 52(2):99-106. PubMed ID: 4501725
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Why China needs an NIH.
    Nature; 2004 Apr; 428(6984):679. PubMed ID: 15085093
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Proposals, peer review, and research results.
    Roy R
    Science; 1979 Jun; 204(4398):1154, 1156-7. PubMed ID: 451561
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Subjective influences in the grant review process.
    Mackenzie RS; Martin RE
    J Dent Educ; 1986 Dec; 50(12):726-7. PubMed ID: 3465776
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Philanthropists are paying their dues.
    Barres BA
    Nature; 2001 May; 411(6834):132. PubMed ID: 11346763
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.