247 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20183164)
21. Notes from the Director, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: transitions.
Nabel EG
Blood; 2009 Mar; 113(13):2875-7. PubMed ID: 19324910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Development of a successful research grant application.
Woodward DK; Clifton GD
Am J Hosp Pharm; 1994 Mar; 51(6):813-22. PubMed ID: 8010324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Doubts over evolution block funding by Canadian agency.
Hoag H
Nature; 2006 Apr; 440(7085):720-1. PubMed ID: 16598216
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Windfall warning.
Nature; 2009 Oct; 461(7266):847-8. PubMed ID: 19829323
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Citation impact of NHLBI R01 grants funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as compared to R01 grants funded through a standard payline.
Danthi NS; Wu CO; DiMichele DM; Hoots WK; Lauer MS
Circ Res; 2015 Feb; 116(5):784-8. PubMed ID: 25722441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.
Tamblyn R; Girard N; Qian CJ; Hanley J
CMAJ; 2018 Apr; 190(16):E489-E499. PubMed ID: 29685909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. UK scientists celebrate budget reprieve.
Brumfiel G
Nature; 2010 Oct; 467(7319):1017. PubMed ID: 20981063
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.
Fang H
Sci Eng Ethics; 2015 Oct; 21(5):1285-96. PubMed ID: 25143309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. UK scientists celebrate slight rise in research budget.
Gibney E
Nature; 2015 Dec; 528(7580):20. PubMed ID: 26632569
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Acceptance of peer review will free Italy's research slaves.
Marino IR
Nature; 2008 May; 453(7194):449. PubMed ID: 18497795
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Basic research: goddess and cow.
Nichols RW
Nature; 2010 Sep; 467(7314):400. PubMed ID: 20864981
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Questions about Russian grant system.
Prokhortchouk E
Science; 2003 Aug; 301(5635):917-8. PubMed ID: 12920281
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Australian scientists protest at loss of funding board.
Dennis C
Nature; 2005 Jul; 436(7050):451. PubMed ID: 16049440
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Funding impact of the National Cancer Act and beyond.
Kalberer JT; Newell GR
Cancer Res; 1979 Oct; 39(10):4274-84. PubMed ID: 383282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators.
Oliveira DFM; Ma Y; Woodruff TK; Uzzi B
JAMA; 2019 Mar; 321(9):898-900. PubMed ID: 30835300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Physician-scientists at risk.
Montgomery EB
Science; 1999 Mar; 283(5407):1455-6. PubMed ID: 10206872
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Tips on writing successful grant proposals.
Hodgson C
Nurse Pract; 1989 Feb; 14(2):44, 46, 49 passim. PubMed ID: 2927750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Grants management. NSF survey of applicants finds a system teetering on the brink.
Mervis J
Science; 2007 Aug; 317(5840):880-1. PubMed ID: 17702914
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Innovation needs novel thinking.
Leshner AI
Science; 2011 May; 332(6033):1009. PubMed ID: 21617043
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
