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 *

354 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23029386)

  • 1. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Amiel P; Tubach F; Gottot S; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e46054. PubMed ID: 23029386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives.
    Schroter S; Groves T; Højgaard L
    BMC Med; 2010 Oct; 8():62. PubMed ID: 20961441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Tubach F; Amiel P; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35247. PubMed ID: 22496913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
    Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.
    Demicheli V; Di Pietrantonj C
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; 2007(2):MR000003. PubMed ID: 17443627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals.
    Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0273813. PubMed ID: 36026494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications.
    Mayo NE; Brophy J; Goldberg MS; Klein MB; Miller S; Platt RW; Ritchie J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 16828678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer reviewers' dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences.
    Vallée-Tourangeau G; Wheelock A; Vandrevala T; Harries P
    Humanit Soc Sci Commun; 2022 Mar; 9(1):. PubMed ID: 36530545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Tafari AT; Cohen SS; Lauer M; Clauser S; Goertz C; Schrandt S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1152-1160. PubMed ID: 30314615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB; Thompson LA; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2021 Mar; 27(2):18. PubMed ID: 33733708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.
    Gallo SA; Thompson LA; Schmaling KB; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):761-782. PubMed ID: 31359327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?: An Empirical Investigation Using the Example of the Austrian Science Fund.
    Mutz R; Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    Z Psychol; 2012; 220(2):121-129. PubMed ID: 23480982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Ponderings on peer review: Part 3. Grant critiques.
    Seals DR
    Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol; 2023 Nov; 325(5):R604-R618. PubMed ID: 37720995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery.
    Fang FC; Casadevall A
    mBio; 2016 Apr; 7(2):e00422-16. PubMed ID: 27073093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for Research.
    Pina DG; Hren D; Marušić A
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130753. PubMed ID: 26126111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach.
    Mutz R; Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(10):e48509. PubMed ID: 23119041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 18.