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 *

247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17267383)

  • 1. Point: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Kaplan D
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):305-8. PubMed ID: 17267383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Counterpoint: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Pederson T
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):309-10; discussion 311. PubMed ID: 17267384
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Overhaul of peer review at NIH.
    Fusaro RM
    Lancet; 1999 Nov; 354(9190):1649. PubMed ID: 10560706
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Cautious welcome to NIH peer review reforms.
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 May; 369(6478):269. PubMed ID: 8183356
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review: a crisis in confidence.
    Kirschstein RL
    Clin Res; 1986 Oct; 34(4):477-83. PubMed ID: 3780138
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 8. Peer review at National Institutes of Health: small steps forward.
    Johnston SC; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2008 Nov; 64(5):A15-7. PubMed ID: 19067350
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

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

  • 11. 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]  

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

  • 13. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. The changing face of peer review at the National Institutes of Health.
    Leppert PC
    Fertil Steril; 2004 Feb; 81(2):279-86. PubMed ID: 14967360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Recent changes in NIH peer review system.
    Demsey A
    Physiologist; 1988 Dec; 31(6):155-6. PubMed ID: 3237781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Does peer review at the US National Institutes of Health need modifying?
    Reprod Biomed Online; 2008 Feb; 16(2):238. PubMed ID: 18284879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. International peer review improved Irish research rankings.
    O'Carroll C
    Nature; 2009 Aug; 460(7258):949. PubMed ID: 19693064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. NIH weighs peer review changes.
    Lang L
    Gastroenterology; 2008 Feb; 134(2):380. PubMed ID: 18242202
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.