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 *

295 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16469900)

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

  • 2. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. National Institutes of Health. Grants 'below payline' rise to help new investigators.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2009 Sep; 325(5948):1607. PubMed ID: 19779159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. NIH needs a makeover.
    Dey SK
    Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

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

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

  • 11. Science policy: Well-funded investigators should receive extra scrutiny.
    Berg JM
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):203. PubMed ID: 22972279
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. A risk worth taking.
    Nature; 2008 Oct; 455(7217):1150. PubMed ID: 18971970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

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

  • 16. Extra scrutiny for 'grandee grantees'.
    Hand E
    Nature; 2012 Feb; 482(7386):450-1. PubMed ID: 22358805
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 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 15.