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 *

287 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676666)

  • 41. Incidence and nature of unblinding by authors: our experience at two radiology journals with double-blinded peer review policies.
    Katz DS; Proto AV; Olmsted WW
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1415-7. PubMed ID: 12438028
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Bruce R; Chauvin A; Trinquart L; Ravaud P; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2016 Jun; 14(1):85. PubMed ID: 27287500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
    Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial.
    Schroter S; Black N; Evans S; Carpenter J; Godlee F; Smith R
    BMJ; 2004 Mar; 328(7441):673. PubMed ID: 14996698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. 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]  

  • 46. 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]  

  • 47. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.
    Cobo E; Cortés J; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Selva-O'Callaghan A; Kostov B; García L; Cirugeda L; Altman DG; González JA; Sànchez JA; Miras F; Urrutia A; Fonollosa V; Rey-Joly C; Vilardell M
    BMJ; 2011 Nov; 343():d6783. PubMed ID: 22108262
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing.
    Kulczycki E; Rozkosz EA; Engels TCE; Guns R; Hołowiecki M; Pölönen J
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(3):e0214423. PubMed ID: 30908515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Suggested reviewers: friends or foes?
    Zupanc GKH
    J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol; 2022 Jul; 208(4):463-466. PubMed ID: 35524786
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.
    Callaham ML; Knopp RK; Gallagher EJ
    JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2781-3. PubMed ID: 12038910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Journal policy on ethics in scientific publication.
    Callaham ML
    Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Jan; 41(1):82-9. PubMed ID: 12514687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions.
    Garfunkel JM; Ulshen MH; Hamrick HJ; Lawson EE
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):137-8. PubMed ID: 8015125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. A prospective study on an innovative online forum for peer reviewing of surgical science.
    Almquist M; von Allmen RS; Carradice D; Oosterling SJ; McFarlane K; Wijnhoven B
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0179031. PubMed ID: 28662046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. 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]  

  • 55. How do reviewers affect the final outcome? Comparison of the quality of peer review and relative acceptance rates of submitted manuscripts.
    Kurihara Y; Colletti PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Sep; 201(3):468-70. PubMed ID: 23971437
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Effect of structured workshop training on subsequent performance of journal peer reviewers.
    Callaham ML; Schriger DL
    Ann Emerg Med; 2002 Sep; 40(3):323-8. PubMed ID: 12192358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Conflicting interests involved in the process of publishing in biomedical journals.
    Igi R
    J BUON; 2015; 20(5):1373-7. PubMed ID: 26537088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. 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]  

  • 59. [What do reviewers look for in 'original articles' submitted for publication in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde?].
    Tjon MJ; Sang F; Overbeke AJ; Lockefeer JH
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1996 Nov; 140(47):2349-52. PubMed ID: 8984399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Comparison of self-citation by peer reviewers in a journal with single-blind peer review versus a journal with open peer review.
    Levis AW; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA; Thombs BD
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Dec; 79(6):561-5. PubMed ID: 26337110
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.