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 *

252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676669)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Policies, practices, and attitudes of North American medical journal editors.
    Wilkes MS; Kravitz RL
    J Gen Intern Med; 1995 Aug; 10(8):443-50. PubMed ID: 7472701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review?
    Yankauer A
    JAMA; 1990 Mar; 263(10):1338-40. PubMed ID: 2304210
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
    Fisher M; Friedman SB; Strauss B
    JAMA; 1994 Jul; 272(2):143-6. PubMed ID: 8015127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A comparison of reviewers selected by editors and reviewers suggested by authors.
    Rivara FP; Cummings P; Ringold S; Bergman AB; Joffe A; Christakis DA
    J Pediatr; 2007 Aug; 151(2):202-5. PubMed ID: 17643779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Kliewer MA; Freed KS; DeLong DM; Pickhardt PJ; Provenzale JM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Jun; 184(6):1731-5. PubMed ID: 15908521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals.
    Cooper RJ; Gupta M; Wilkes MS; Hoffman JR
    J Gen Intern Med; 2006 Dec; 21(12):1248-52. PubMed ID: 17105524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Coached Peer Review: Developing the Next Generation of Authors.
    Sidalak D; Purdy E; Luckett-Gatopoulos S; Murray H; Thoma B; Chan TM
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):201-204. PubMed ID: 27191842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. A comparison of authors publishing in two groups of U.S. medical journals.
    Weller AC
    Bull Med Libr Assoc; 1996 Jul; 84(3):359-66. PubMed ID: 8883984
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Decadelong profile of women in ophthalmic publications.
    Franco-Cardenas V; Rosenberg J; Ramirez A; Lin J; Tsui I
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2015 Mar; 133(3):255-9. PubMed ID: 25392974
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. How blind is blind review?
    Yankauer A
    Am J Public Health; 1991 Jul; 81(7):843-5. PubMed ID: 2053657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
    Wagner AK; Boninger ML; Levy C; Chan L; Gater D; Kirby RL
    Am J Phys Med Rehabil; 2003 Oct; 82(10):790-802. PubMed ID: 14508411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Prevalence of honorary coauthorship in the American Journal of Roentgenology.
    Bonekamp S; Halappa VG; Corona-Villalobos CP; Mensa M; Eng J; Lewin JS; Kamel IR
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Jun; 198(6):1247-55. PubMed ID: 22623536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An examination of sources of peer-review bias.
    Blackburn JL; Hakel MD
    Psychol Sci; 2006 May; 17(5):378-82. PubMed ID: 16683923
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality.
    Callaham ML; Tercier J
    PLoS Med; 2007 Jan; 4(1):e40. PubMed ID: 17411314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.
    Hatch CL; Goodman SN
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):273-4. PubMed ID: 9676679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. Reviewing scientific manuscripts: how much statistical knowledge should a reviewer really know?
    Morton JP
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2009 Mar; 33(1):7-9. PubMed ID: 19261753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
    Nielsen MB; Seitz K
    Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Reliability of editors' subjective quality ratings of peer reviews of manuscripts.
    Callaham ML; Baxt WG; Waeckerle JF; Wears RL
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):229-31. PubMed ID: 9676664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.