258 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16400131)
1. Revamping NIH Study Sections.
Lenard J
Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):36. PubMed ID: 16400131
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Peer review and new investigators.
Taffe MA
Science; 2006 Feb; 311(5762):775. PubMed ID: 16469900
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Peer review reviewed.
Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
Scarpa T
Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The NIH entitlement program.
DeVita VT
Nat Rev Clin Oncol; 2009 Nov; 6(11):613. PubMed ID: 19861989
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. NIH needs a makeover.
Dey SK
Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
Wadman M
Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Science policy. The NIH budget in the "postdoubling" era.
Korn D; Rich RR; Garrison HH; Golub SH; Hendrix MJ; Heinig SJ; Masters BS; Turman RJ
Science; 2002 May; 296(5572):1401-2. PubMed ID: 12029114
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. NIH consultant finds little evidence of bias against clinical researchers.
Brainard J
Chron High Educ; 2005 Mar; 51(28):A23. PubMed ID: 15835080
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Growing pains for NIH grant review.
Bonetta L
Cell; 2006 Jun; 125(5):823-5. PubMed ID: 16751088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Research agenda. Opportunities for research and NIH.
Collins FS
Science; 2010 Jan; 327(5961):36-7. PubMed ID: 20044560
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Research funding. NIH in the post-doubling era: realities and strategies.
Zerhouni EA
Science; 2006 Nov; 314(5802):1088-90. PubMed ID: 17110557
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Most researchers favor NIH policy that requires less information, survey finds.
Brainard J
Chron High Educ; 2005 Aug; LI(49):A22. PubMed ID: 16302323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. National Institutes of Health. Zerhouni's parting message: make room for young scientists.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Nov; 322(5903):834-5. PubMed ID: 18988813
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
