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 *

423 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676665)

  • 21. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL EDITORS' VIEWS ON REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE.
    Oehrlein EM; Graff JS; Perfetto EM; Mullins CD; Dubois RW; Anyanwu C; Onukwugha E
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2018 Jan; 34(1):111-119. PubMed ID: 29415784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Is there a sex bias in choosing editors? Epidemiology journals as an example.
    Dickersin K; Fredman L; Flegal KM; Scott JD; Crawley B
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):260-4. PubMed ID: 9676675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    Glonti K; Boutron I; Moher D; Hren D
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035600. PubMed ID: 32792429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Peer review of the biomedical literature.
    Olson CM
    Am J Emerg Med; 1990 Jul; 8(4):356-8. PubMed ID: 2194471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.
    Marusić A; Lukić IK; Marusić M; McNamee D; Sharp D; Horton R
    Croat Med J; 2002 Jun; 43(3):286-9. PubMed ID: 12035133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.
    Cobo E; Selva-O'Callagham A; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Dominguez R; Vilardell M
    PLoS One; 2007 Mar; 2(3):e332. PubMed ID: 17389922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Editors' perspectives on the selection of reviewers and the quality of reviews.
    Cengher M; LeBlanc LA
    J Appl Behav Anal; 2024 Jan; 57(1):153-165. PubMed ID: 37937479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Does mentoring new peer reviewers improve review quality? A randomized trial.
    Houry D; Green S; Callaham M
    BMC Med Educ; 2012 Aug; 12():83. PubMed ID: 22928960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet.
    Jefferson T; Smith R; Yee Y; Drummond M; Pratt M; Gale R
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):275-7. PubMed ID: 9676680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
    Harris AH; Reeder R; Hyun JK
    J Psychiatr Res; 2009 Oct; 43(15):1231-4. PubMed ID: 19435635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.
    Cho MK; Justice AC; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Waeckerle JF; Callaham ML; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):243-5. PubMed ID: 9676669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Statistical reviewing policies in dermatology journals: results of a questionnaire survey of editors.
    Katz KA; Crawford GH; Lu DW; Kantor J; Margolis DJ
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2004 Aug; 51(2):234-40. PubMed ID: 15280842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Prepublication review of medical ethics research: cause for concern.
    Landy DC; Coverdale JH; McCullough LB; Sharp RR
    Acad Med; 2009 Apr; 84(4):495-7. PubMed ID: 19318788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 22.