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.
334 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14657434)
21. Changes to NIH grant system may backfire. Karp PD; Sherlock G; Gerlt JA; Sim I; Paulsen I; Babbitt PC; Laderoute K; Hunter L; Sternberg P; Wooley J; Bourne PE Science; 2008 Nov; 322(5905):1187-8. PubMed ID: 19023064 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Research funding. Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system. Hegde D; Mowery DC Science; 2008 Dec; 322(5909):1797-8. PubMed ID: 19095928 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. NIH panel to monitor peer review in action. Taylor R Nature; 1995 Jun; 375(6531):438. PubMed ID: 7777040 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Growing pains for NIH grant review. Bonetta L Cell; 2006 Jun; 125(5):823-5. PubMed ID: 16751088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
27. 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]
28. NIH agrees to temporary by-pass of AIDS office in allocation of grants. Wadman M Nature; 1996 Feb; 379(6565):475. PubMed ID: 8596616 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Peer review at NIH: a conversation with CSR director Toni Scarpa. Scarpa T Physiologist; 2010 Jun; 53(3):65, 67-9. PubMed ID: 20550006 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Dr Healy, Dr Kennedy and Mr Dingell. Nature; 1991 Aug; 352(6335):457-8. PubMed ID: 1865893 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Biomedical politics. Sex studies denounced, NIH's peer-review process defended. Kaiser J Science; 2003 Nov; 302(5647):966-7. PubMed ID: 14605337 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. NIH responds to critics on peer review. Wadman M Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Why China needs an NIH. Nature; 2004 Apr; 428(6984):679. PubMed ID: 15085093 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. NIH--a balancing act. Pollner F Med World News; 1985 Jan; Spec No():28-31. PubMed ID: 10269823 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Commentary: new guidelines for NIH peer review: improving the system or undermining it? Spiegel AM Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):746-8. PubMed ID: 20520019 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]