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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

392 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16400135)

  • 1. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
    Scarpa T
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. A metareview at the NIH.
    Nat Med; 2008 Apr; 14(4):351. PubMed ID: 18391922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [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. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 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. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Growing pains for NIH grant review.
    Bonetta L
    Cell; 2006 Jun; 125(5):823-5. PubMed ID: 16751088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Revamping NIH Study Sections.
    Lenard J
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):36. PubMed ID: 16400131
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Two facets of peer review and the proper role of study sections.
    Lenard J
    Account Res; 2006; 13(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 17124762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. NIH panel to monitor peer review in action.
    Taylor R
    Nature; 1995 Jun; 375(6531):438. PubMed ID: 7777040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review and new investigators.
    Taffe MA
    Science; 2006 Feb; 311(5762):775. PubMed ID: 16469900
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. NIH budget. Peer review under stress.
    Miller G; Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Apr; 316(5823):358-9. PubMed ID: 17446364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.