153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20183163)
1. The real cost of the NSERC peer review is less than 5% of a proposed baseline grant.
Roorda S
Account Res; 2009 Jul; 16(4):229-31. PubMed ID: 20183163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.
Gordon R; Poulin BJ
Account Res; 2009; 16(1):13-40. PubMed ID: 19247851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Indeed: Cost of the NSERC science grant peer review system exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.
Gordon R; Poulin BJ
Account Res; 2009 Jul; 16(4):232-3. PubMed ID: 20183164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Basic research: goddess and cow.
Nichols RW
Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):400. PubMed ID: 20864981
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Preparing effective grant applications.
Arnett DK
Circulation; 2009 Dec; 120(25):2607-12. PubMed ID: 20026793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review of health services research grant applications.
McFall D
Inquiry; 1978 Sep; 15(3):210-6. PubMed ID: 151070
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Rethinking grant review.
Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Impact of 10 years of glaucoma research funding: the Glaucoma Research Society of Canada.
Seif G; Trope G
Can J Ophthalmol; 2010 Apr; 45(2):132-4. PubMed ID: 20379296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. MRC's Dr. Pierre Bois: research funding's precarious future.
Bois P
Can Med Assoc J; 1984 Dec; 131(12):1476-8. PubMed ID: 6498704
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Questions about Russian grant system.
Prokhortchouk E
Science; 2003 Aug; 301(5635):917-8. PubMed ID: 12920281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. US government targets indirect cost agreements.
Anderson C
Nature; 1992 Jan; 355(6356):97. PubMed ID: 1729655
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. NIH pilots faster feedback for grant resubmissions.
Wadman M
Nature; 1997 Oct; 389(6654):898. PubMed ID: 9353109
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Grant applications swamp agency.
Wadman M
Nature; 2009 Jun; 459(7248):763. PubMed ID: 19516308
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
