188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20026793)
1. Preparing effective grant applications.
Arnett DK
Circulation; 2009 Dec; 120(25):2607-12. PubMed ID: 20026793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. National Institutes of Health. Two strikes and you're out, grant applicants learn.
Kaiser J
Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5900):358. PubMed ID: 18927363
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A Nobel lesson: the grant behind the prize.
Berg JM
Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5865):900-1. PubMed ID: 18276870
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. NIH: gearing up for the twenty-first century.
Baldwin W; McCardle P
Physiologist; 1997 Jun; 40(3):89, 91-3. PubMed ID: 9230629
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Rethinking grant review.
Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A Nobel lesson: the grant behind the prize. Response.
Capecchi MR
Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5865):900-1. PubMed ID: 18283726
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. New rules propose greater scrutiny for NIH grant recipients.
Dove A
Nat Med; 2006 Jan; 12(1):5. PubMed ID: 16397535
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. NIH pilots faster feedback for grant resubmissions.
Wadman M
Nature; 1997 Oct; 389(6654):898. PubMed ID: 9353109
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Revitalizing the federal commitment in support of biomedical research.
Hathaway DR
Clin Res; 1988 Sep; 36(5):475-82. PubMed ID: 3168401
[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. Biomedical research. Stimulus funding elicits a tidal wave of 'challenge grants'.
Kaiser J
Science; 2009 May; 324(5929):867. PubMed ID: 19443754
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Nurturing the biomedical research enterprise.
Wyngaarden JB
P R Health Sci J; 1986 Aug; 5(2):43-50. PubMed ID: 3823360
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Grant applications swamp agency.
Wadman M
Nature; 2009 Jun; 459(7248):763. PubMed ID: 19516308
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review: NIH urged to streamline bids..
Gavaghan H
Nature; 1994 Jul; 370(6486):170-1. PubMed ID: 8028655
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A curbstone consult to applicants for National Institute of Mental Health grant support.
Rush AJ; Gullion CM; Prien RF
Psychopharmacol Bull; 1996; 32(3):311-20. PubMed ID: 8961773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Biologists wary that cash up front could mean cuts later.
Check E
Nature; 2003 Feb; 421(6924):677. PubMed ID: 12610581
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
