172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10369531)
1. Structure and process of federal funding for AD research.
Wells N; Hurley AC
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S117-9. PubMed ID: 10369531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Hematology grants workshop-2001.
Todd RF; Miller DM; Silverstein RL
Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program; 2001; ():507-21. PubMed ID: 11723002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Report from the National Institute on Aging: the research grant support mechanism.
Murphy DG
J Gerontol; 1976 Nov; 31(6):696-704. PubMed ID: 977929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The grant application: making yours stand out across the review cycle.
Hurley AC; Wells N
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S120-2. PubMed ID: 10369532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
Lauer MS; Nakamura R
N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH.
Martin MR; Kopstein A; Janice JM
PLoS One; 2010 Nov; 5(11):e13526. PubMed ID: 21103331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
Scarpa T
Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Development of a successful research grant application.
Woodward DK; Clifton GD
Am J Hosp Pharm; 1994 Mar; 51(6):813-22. PubMed ID: 8010324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.
Costello LC
Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):775-9. PubMed ID: 20520024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications.
Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Miller Sostek A; Hoffmann R; Malik K; Stanfield B
J Investig Med; 2006 Jan; 54(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 16409886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers.
Shalev M
Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Multimedia: a necessary step in the evolution of research funding applications.
Doran MR; Lott WB; Doran SE
Trends Biochem Sci; 2014 Apr; 39(4):151-3. PubMed ID: 24703407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. American Idol and NIH grant review--redux.
Munger K
Cell; 2006 Nov; 127(4):661-2; author reply 664-5. PubMed ID: 17110320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective.
Bonetta L
Cell; 2008 Oct; 135(2):201-4. PubMed ID: 18957192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.
Eblen MK; Wagner RM; RoyChowdhury D; Patel KC; Pearson K
PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155060. PubMed ID: 27249058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Grants, politics, and the NIH.
Drazen JM; Ingelfinger JR
N Engl J Med; 2003 Dec; 349(23):2259-61. PubMed ID: 14657434
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.
Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Malik K; Ehrenfeld E
JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):836-43. PubMed ID: 14970062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. NIH plans peer-review overhaul.
Marshall E
Science; 1997 May; 276(5314):888-9. PubMed ID: 9163031
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.
Broder S; Cushing M
Cancer Res; 1993 Feb; 53(3):477-84. PubMed ID: 8425180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
