169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1149887)
1. Peer review reviewed.
Mehl JW
Fed Proc; 1975 Aug; 34(9):i-iv. PubMed ID: 1149887
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Nurturing the biomedical research enterprise.
Wyngaarden JB
P R Health Sci J; 1986 Aug; 5(2):43-50. PubMed ID: 3823360
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Editorial: Judicium parium.
Fishman AP
N Engl J Med; 1974 Jan; 290(2):105-6. PubMed ID: 4808447
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The National Institutes of Health yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
Fredrickson DS
Public Health Rep; 1978; 93(6):642-7. PubMed ID: 362469
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Management operations of the National Cancer Institute that influence the governance of science.
Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1984 May; 64():1-139. PubMed ID: 6749243
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Visceral viewpoints. Goals and controls - grants and contracts.
Spiro HM
N Engl J Med; 1975 Sep; 293(11):545-7. PubMed ID: 1152879
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. National Institutes of Health. Changes in peer review target young scientists, heavyweights.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Jun; 320(5882):1404. PubMed ID: 18556519
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Proposal for public archive draws support, criticism.
Travis K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Oct; 96(19):1416. PubMed ID: 15467028
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Research funding.
FASEB J; 1991 Sep; 5(12):2741-2. PubMed ID: 1916097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
Gavaghan H
Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. National Institutes of Health. Panel weighs starter R01 grants.
Kaiser J
Science; 2004 Jun; 304(5679):1891. PubMed ID: 15218117
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Peer review of researchgrant applications at the National Institutes of Health 2: review by an initial review group.
Henley C
Fed Proc; 1977 Aug; 36(9):2186-90. PubMed ID: 885260
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Washington report: a conversation with Vincent T. DeVita, Jr., M.D.. Interview by Daniel S. Greenberg.
DeVita VT
N Engl J Med; 1980 Oct; 303(17):1014-6. PubMed ID: 7412849
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 1: the assignment and referral processes.
Henley C
Fed Proc; 1977 Jul; 36(8):2066-8. PubMed ID: 872944
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. National Institutes of Health. Two strikes and you're out, grant applicants learn.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5900):358. PubMed ID: 18927363
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Proposals for improving the Peer Review System of the National Institutes of Health.
Kirschstein RL
Clin Res; 1977 Dec; 25(5):295-6. PubMed ID: 10304717
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Peer review. NIH urged to focus on new ideas, new applicants.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5867):1169. PubMed ID: 18309051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 3: review by an advisory board/council.
Henley C
Fed Proc; 1977 Sep; 36(10):2335-8. PubMed ID: 892000
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Letter: The National Institutes of Health grants peer review study team.
Looney GL
Am J Chin Med (Gard City N Y); 1976; 4(2):201-3. PubMed ID: 937242
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
