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.
81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1200477)
21. Comparability of the American Cancer Society and National Institutes of Health peer review systems. Vivona S; Do van Quy D Cancer Res; 1973 Apr; 33(4):919. PubMed ID: 4739656 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. US Army to use peer review in breast cancer programme. Mervis J Nature; 1993 May; 363(6426):195. PubMed ID: 8487852 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Cancer fraud case stuns research community, prompts reflection on peer review process. Vastag B J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Mar; 98(6):374-6. PubMed ID: 16537825 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. The grant racket. Ross PM Nature; 1992 Jan; 355(6357):197. PubMed ID: 1731211 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. A proposal for per capita distribution of research funds with administrative flexibility. Hirsch HR Fed Proc; 1984 Apr; 43(5):7a-8a. PubMed ID: 6705928 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The peer review process: how to prepare research grant applications to the NIH. Novello AC Miner Electrolyte Metab; 1985; 11(5):281-6. PubMed ID: 4047004 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Editorial: Funding medical research. Caldwell PR Med Times; 1974 Aug; 102(8):17-21. PubMed ID: 4845589 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Congress slashes "silly titles". Anderson C Nature; 1992 May; 357(6376):271. PubMed ID: 1589030 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. The crisis of the peer review system. Lepow IH Fed Proc; 1973 Aug; 32(8):1827. PubMed ID: 4718901 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. The current generation of research proposals: reviewers' viewpoints. Kim MJ; Felton G Nurs Res; 1993; 42(2):118-9. PubMed ID: 8455987 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. What we mean when we talk about "conflict of interest". Frey JJ WMJ; 2007 Apr; 106(2):49. PubMed ID: 17479817 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Institute of Medicine health policy studies must undergo rigorous review. Rev Fed Am Hosp; 1979 Feb; 12(1):41-2. PubMed ID: 10240038 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Protection of human research subjects: proposed rule. Fed Regist; 1979 Aug; 44(158):47687-729. PubMed ID: 10242808 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. [The peer review system inhibits creative research. Let the scientists take care of the "risk capital"]. Dahlgren C Lakartidningen; 1993 Nov; 90(44):3829-30. PubMed ID: 8231530 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Company sponsored clinical research--it can be trusted. Arnold J; Hofmann L; Rupinskas VR Decubitus; 1989 Feb; 2(1):22-4. PubMed ID: 2751831 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]