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 *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20961441)

  • 21. Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.
    Shepherd J; Frampton GK; Pickett K; Wyatt JC
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0196914. PubMed ID: 29750807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Seed grants as a means of stimulating cancer research funding.
    Hanson CS; Schneider D; Hill AM
    Health Policy; 2008 Dec; 88(2-3):243-9. PubMed ID: 18468715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. How do organisations implement research impact assessment (RIA) principles and good practice? A narrative review and exploratory study of four international research funding and administrative organisations.
    Kamenetzky A; Hinrichs-Krapels S
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2020 Jan; 18(1):6. PubMed ID: 31959198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.
    Pina DG; Buljan I; Hren D; Marušić A
    Elife; 2021 Jan; 10():. PubMed ID: 33439120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Health Research Priority Setting: Do Grant Review Processes Reflect Ethical Principles?
    Pierson L; Millum J
    Glob Public Health; 2022 Jul; 17(7):1186-1199. PubMed ID: 33938386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. Translating research into action: an international study of the role of research funders.
    McLean RKD; Graham ID; Tetroe JM; Volmink JA
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2018 May; 16(1):44. PubMed ID: 29793541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Assessing health research grant applications: A retrospective comparative review of a one-stage versus a two-stage application assessment process.
    Morgan B; Yu LM; Solomon T; Ziebland S
    PLoS One; 2020; 15(3):e0230118. PubMed ID: 32163468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process.
    Paberzs A; Piechowski P; Warrick D; Grawi C; Choate C; Sneed G; Carr D; Lota K; Key K; Alexander V; Ghosh P; Sampselle C
    Clin Transl Sci; 2014 Apr; 7(2):156-63. PubMed ID: 24456508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.
    Burns KEA; Straus SE; Liu K; Rizvi L; Guyatt G
    PLoS Med; 2019 Oct; 16(10):e1002935. PubMed ID: 31613898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports.
    Severin A; Martins J; Heyard R; Delavy F; Jorstad A; Egger M
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035058. PubMed ID: 32819934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Neither carrots nor sticks? Challenges surrounding data sharing from the perspective of research funding agencies-A qualitative expert interview study.
    Anger M; Wendelborn C; Winkler EC; Schickhardt C
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(9):e0273259. PubMed ID: 36070283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Directing research funds to the right research projects: a review of criteria used by research organisations in Australia in prioritising health research projects for funding.
    Tuffaha HW; El Saifi N; Chambers SK; Scuffham PA
    BMJ Open; 2018 Dec; 8(12):e026207. PubMed ID: 30580278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. An evidence-based guide to writing grant proposals for clinical research.
    Inouye SK; Fiellin DA
    Ann Intern Med; 2005 Feb; 142(4):274-82. PubMed ID: 15710960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Health and medical research funding agencies' promotion of public engagement within research: a qualitative interview study exploring the United Kingdom context.
    van Bekkum JE; Fergie GM; Hilton S
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 Mar; 14():23. PubMed ID: 27009326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey.
    Tite L; Schroter S
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Jan; 61(1):9-12. PubMed ID: 17183008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Retractions and Rewards in Science: An Open Question for Reviewers and Funders.
    Ribeiro MD; Kalichman MW; Vasconcelos SMR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2023 Jul; 29(4):26. PubMed ID: 37403005
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
    Lauer MS; Danthi NS; Kaltman J; Wu C
    Circ Res; 2015 Jul; 117(3):239-43. PubMed ID: 26089369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Public funding for research on antibacterial resistance in the JPIAMR countries, the European Commission, and related European Union agencies: a systematic observational analysis.
    Kelly R; Zoubiane G; Walsh D; Ward R; Goossens H
    Lancet Infect Dis; 2016 Apr; 16(4):431-40. PubMed ID: 26708524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.
    Barnett A; Page K; Dyer C; Cramb S
    Elife; 2022 Apr; 11():. PubMed ID: 35373737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.