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 *

281 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676666)

  • 61. 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]  

  • 62. Can Sex and Seniority Predict the Quality of a Journal Reviewer's Manuscript Critique?
    Jamorabo DS; Deek MP; Yom SS; Rehman H; Zietman AL; Motwani SB; Briggs WM; Kim S; Chang DT; Jabbour SK
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2021 Oct; 111(2):312-316. PubMed ID: 34044095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Characteristics of Peer Review Reports: Editor-Suggested Versus Author-Suggested Reviewers.
    Shopovski J; Bolek C; Bolek M
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):709-726. PubMed ID: 31209769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: a cross-sectional study.
    Thombs BD; Levis AW; Razykov I; Syamchandra A; Leentjens AF; Levenson JL; Lumley MA
    J Psychosom Res; 2015 Jan; 78(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 25300537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.
    Tricco AC; Thomas SM; Antony J; Rios P; Robson R; Pattani R; Ghassemi M; Sullivan S; Selvaratnam I; Tannenbaum C; Straus SE
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0169718. PubMed ID: 28061509
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.
    Rubin HR; Redelmeier DA; Wu AW; Steinberg EP
    J Gen Intern Med; 1993 May; 8(5):255-8. PubMed ID: 8505684
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. Submission of scientifically sound and ethical manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals - a reviewer's personal perspective on bioanalytical publications.
    Weng N
    Biomed Chromatogr; 2012 Nov; 26(11):1457-60. PubMed ID: 22987619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Which peer reviewers voluntarily reveal their identity to authors? Insights into the consequences of open-identities peer review.
    Fox CW
    Proc Biol Sci; 2021 Oct; 288(1961):20211399. PubMed ID: 34702079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Peer review guidance: how do you write a good review?
    Allen TW
    J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2013 Dec; 113(12):916-20. PubMed ID: 24285034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Manuscript Review at the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: The Impact of Reviewers on Editor Decisions.
    Kumar P; Ravindra A; Wang Y; Belli DC; Heyman MB; Gupta SK
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr; 2021 Nov; 73(5):567-571. PubMed ID: 34173794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. [The recognition of peer reviewers activity: the potential promotion of a virtuous circle.].
    Pierno A; Fruscio R; Bellani G
    Recenti Prog Med; 2017 Sep; 108(9):355-359. PubMed ID: 28901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
    Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
    Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. [Effect of statistical review on manuscript quality in Medicina Clínica (Barcelona): a randomized study].
    Arnau C; Cobo E; Ribera JM; Cardellach F; Selva A; Urrutia A
    Med Clin (Barc); 2003 Nov; 121(18):690-4. PubMed ID: 14651815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. An audit of the editorial process and peer review in the journal Clinical rehabilitation.
    Wade D; Tennant A
    Clin Rehabil; 2004 Mar; 18(2):117-24. PubMed ID: 15053119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials.
    Del Mar C; Hoffmann TC
    BMC Med; 2015 Nov; 13():248. PubMed ID: 26521647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. The Role of Gender in Publication in The Journal of Pediatrics 2015-2016: Equal Reviews, Unequal Opportunities.
    Williams WA; Garvey KL; Goodman DM; Lauderdale DS; Ross LF
    J Pediatr; 2018 Sep; 200():254-260.e1. PubMed ID: 30029860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Interactive platform for peer review: A proposal to improve the current peer review system.
    Emile SH
    World J Clin Cases; 2021 Feb; 9(6):1247-1250. PubMed ID: 33644191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Do readers and peer reviewers agree on manuscript quality?
    Justice AC; Berlin JA; Fletcher SW; Fletcher RH; Goodman SN
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):117-9. PubMed ID: 8015119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
    Strayhorn J; McDermott JF; Tanguay P
    Am J Psychiatry; 1993 Jun; 150(6):947-52. PubMed ID: 8494074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. Peer reviewers equally critique theory, method, and writing, with limited effect on the final content of accepted manuscripts.
    Stephen D
    Scientometrics; 2022; 127(6):3413-3435. PubMed ID: 35431366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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