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 *

341 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19693064)

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

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

  • 3. 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]  

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

  • 5. Italy outsources peer review to NIH.
    Van Noorden R
    Nature; 2009 Jun; 459(7249):900. PubMed ID: 19536229
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Does peer review at the US National Institutes of Health need modifying?
    Reprod Biomed Online; 2008 Mar; 16(3):390. PubMed ID: 18339262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

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

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

  • 12. Peer review at NIH.
    Osthus RC
    Physiologist; 2007 Oct; 50(5):185, 187. PubMed ID: 17990627
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The NIH entitlement program.
    DeVita VT
    Nat Rev Clin Oncol; 2009 Nov; 6(11):613. PubMed ID: 19861989
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [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. Rethinking grant review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.