247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20183164)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. The status of women cognitive scientists in Canada: Insights from publicly available NSERC funding data.
Titone D; Tiv M; Pexman PM
Can J Exp Psychol; 2018 Jun; 72(2):81-90. PubMed ID: 29902029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An analysis of the funding to, and by, the Medical Research Council of New Zealand during the period 1973-84.
Lee D
N Z Med J; 1986 Nov; 99(813):849-51. PubMed ID: 3466073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Rethinking grant review.
Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Disproportion of economic impact, research achievements and research support in digestive diseases in Canada.
Beck IT
Clin Invest Med; 2001 Feb; 24(1):12-36. PubMed ID: 11266029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.
Costello LC
Acad Med; 2010 May; 85(5):775-9. PubMed ID: 20520024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. How scientists can help to protect US homeland.
McQueary CE
Nature; 2003 Oct; 425(6957):451. PubMed ID: 14523418
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.
Fortin JM; Currie DJ
PLoS One; 2013; 8(6):e65263. PubMed ID: 23840323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How to apply for research grants in allergology.
Guillen-Grima F; Annan JW; Alvarez JM; Gómez JM; Ontoso EA;
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr); 2009; 37(3):146-54. PubMed ID: 19769848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities.
Murray DL; Morris D; Lavoie C; Leavitt PR; MacIsaac H; Masson ME; Villard MA
PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155876. PubMed ID: 27258385
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.
Broder S; Cushing M
Cancer Res; 1993 Feb; 53(3):477-84. PubMed ID: 8425180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Researchers unite in demand for funding.
Webster P
CMAJ; 2017 Jun; 189(24):E847. PubMed ID: 28630368
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Preparing effective grant applications.
Arnett DK
Circulation; 2009 Dec; 120(25):2607-12. PubMed ID: 20026793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Managing clinical grant costs.
Glass HE; Hollander K
Contemp Clin Trials; 2009 May; 30(3):221-6. PubMed ID: 19470309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
