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 *

335 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9782929)

  • 1. What we owe the author: rethinking editorial peer review.
    Crigger NJ
    Nurs Ethics; 1998 Sep; 5(5):451-8. PubMed ID: 9782929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Rethinking peer review.
    Young K
    CMAJ; 2010 Feb; 182(3):281. PubMed ID: 20176769
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Ethics of guidelines for reviewers of medical manuscripts.
    Minion D; Sorial E; Endean E
    J Vasc Surg; 2007 Aug; 46(2):391-3. PubMed ID: 17664118
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?
    Al-Khatib A; Teixeira da Silva JA
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2019 Feb; 25(1):293-321. PubMed ID: 28905258
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Ethical guidelines for publications of research.
    Endocrine Society. Council
    J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 1998 Jan; 83(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 11645018
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Authorship and co-authorship].
    Haug C
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2006 Feb; 126(4):429. PubMed ID: 16477275
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Medwave’s editorial history, policies and guidelines: 2. Editorial policies.
    Bachelet VC
    Medwave; 2017 Apr; 17(3):e6909. PubMed ID: 28430770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals.
    Albert DM; Liesegang TJ; Schachat AP
    Arch Ophthalmol; 2005 May; 123(5):684-6. PubMed ID: 15883290
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Meaningful peer review is integral to quality science and should provide benefits to the authors and reviewers alike.
    Carrell DT; Rajpert-De Meyts E
    Andrology; 2013 Jul; 1(4):531-2. PubMed ID: 23785017
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Social epistemology and the ethics of research.
    Resnik D
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 1996 Dec; 27(4):565-86. PubMed ID: 11645816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Why be my colleague's keeper? Moral justifications for peer review.
    Cain J
    Sci Eng Ethics; 1999 Oct; 5(4):531-40. PubMed ID: 11658232
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The ethics of peer review in bioethics.
    Wendler D; Miller F
    J Med Ethics; 2014 Oct; 40(10):697-701. PubMed ID: 24131903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [The management of errors and scientific fraud by biomedical journals: They cannot replace Institutions].
    Maisonneuve H
    Presse Med; 2012 Sep; 41(9 Pt 1):853-60. PubMed ID: 22836196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Believing what you read. Responsibilities of medical authors and editors.
    Schiedermayer DL; Siegler M
    Arch Intern Med; 1986 Oct; 146(10):2043-4. PubMed ID: 3767550
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. European Urology: serving our readership through systematic peer review, use of reporting standards, and encouragement of postpublication review.
    Catto JW; Cooperberg MR; Cornu JN; Gratzke C; Novara G; Shariat SF; Vickers A
    Eur Urol; 2015 Feb; 67(2):188-90. PubMed ID: 25175422
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Addressing Authorship Issues Prospectively: A Heuristic Approach.
    Roberts LW
    Acad Med; 2017 Feb; 92(2):143-146. PubMed ID: 27355782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives.
    Bunner C; Larson EL
    Am J Infect Control; 2012 Oct; 40(8):701-4. PubMed ID: 23021414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ethics in publication.
    Wallace MB; Siersema PD
    Endoscopy; 2015 Jul; 47(7):575-8. PubMed ID: 26099116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines.
    Claxton LD
    Mutat Res; 2005 Jan; 589(1):31-45. PubMed ID: 15652225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors.
    Schroter S; Tite L; Hutchings A; Black N
    JAMA; 2006 Jan; 295(3):314-7. PubMed ID: 16418467
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 17.