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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23119041)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

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

  • 4. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
    Marsh HW; Jayasinghe UW; Bond NW
    Am Psychol; 2008 Apr; 63(3):160-8. PubMed ID: 18377106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training.
    Sattler DN; McKnight PE; Naney L; Mathis R
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130450. PubMed ID: 26075884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. An intervention to improve the reliability of manuscript reviews for the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
    Strayhorn J; McDermott JF; Tanguay P
    Am J Psychiatry; 1993 Jun; 150(6):947-52. PubMed ID: 8494074
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reliability of Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to Academic Family Medicine Meetings.
    Fenton JJ; Tapp H; Thakur NM; Pfeifle AL
    J Am Board Fam Med; 2020; 33(6):986-991. PubMed ID: 33219077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: a multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants.
    Bornmann L; Mutz R; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2010 Dec; 5(12):e14331. PubMed ID: 21179459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.
    Gallo SA; Carpenter AS; Glisson SR
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(8):e71693. PubMed ID: 23951223
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Peer-review for selection of oral presentations for conferences: Are we reliable?
    Deveugele M; Silverman J
    Patient Educ Couns; 2017 Nov; 100(11):2147-2150. PubMed ID: 28641993
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.
    Giraudeau B; Leyrat C; Le Gouge A; Léger J; Caille A
    PLoS One; 2011; 6(11):e27557. PubMed ID: 22110670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Analyses of inter-rater reliability between professionals, medical students and trained school children as assessors of basic life support skills.
    Beck S; Ruhnke B; Issleib M; Daubmann A; Harendza S; Zöllner C
    BMC Med Educ; 2016 Oct; 16(1):263. PubMed ID: 27717352
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.