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 *

279 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9676679)

  • 1. Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.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]  

  • 2. Reviewers' perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal.
    Snell L; Spencer J
    Med Educ; 2005 Jan; 39(1):90-7. PubMed ID: 15612905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.
    Justice AC; Cho MK; Winker MA; Berlin JA; Rennie D
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):240-2. PubMed ID: 9676668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals.
    Hirst A; Altman DG
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35621. PubMed ID: 22558178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.
    Weber EJ; Callaham ML; Wears RL; Barton C; Young G
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):257-9. PubMed ID: 9676674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review in medical journals: Beyond quality of reports towards transparency and public scrutiny of the process.
    Vercellini P; Buggio L; Viganò P; Somigliana E
    Eur J Intern Med; 2016 Jun; 31():15-9. PubMed ID: 27129625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal.
    Peebles E; Scandlyn M; Hesp BR
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(8):e0237804. PubMed ID: 32817699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
    Rothwell PM; Martyn CN
    Brain; 2000 Sep; 123 ( Pt 9)():1964-9. PubMed ID: 10960059
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review: an essential step in the publishing process.
    Weil J
    J Genet Couns; 2004 Jun; 13(3):183-7. PubMed ID: 15617209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Student peer review decisions on submitted manuscripts are as stringent as faculty peer reviewers.
    Navalta JW; Lyons TS
    Adv Physiol Educ; 2010 Dec; 34(4):170-3. PubMed ID: 21098383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Peer review to ensure quality in forensic mental health publication.
    Felthous AR; Wettstein RM
    J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2014; 42(3):305-14. PubMed ID: 25187283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Designs of trials assessing interventions to improve the peer review process: a vignette-based survey.
    Heim A; Ravaud P; Baron G; Boutron I
    BMC Med; 2018 Oct; 16(1):191. PubMed ID: 30318018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Quality of manuscript evaluation in Gaceta Sanitaria].
    García AM; Plasència A; Fernández E
    Gac Sanit; 2002; 16(3):244-9. PubMed ID: 12057181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Becoming a peer reviewer to medical education journals.
    Azer SA; Ramani S; Peterson R
    Med Teach; 2012; 34(9):698-704. PubMed ID: 22643022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.