131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24330687)
1. Guidelines for community-based partners for reviewing research grant applications: lessons from the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) Community Engagement Research Core (CERC).
Anderson RM; Calhoun K; Choate CB; De Loney EH; Paberzs A; Sampselle CM; Vereen DR; Zimmerman MA
Clin Transl Sci; 2013 Dec; 6(6):421-3. PubMed ID: 24330687
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Knowing it and proving it are two different things.
Clay PG
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003); 2015; 55(4):464. PubMed ID: 26161492
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. US science policy: upstart states.
Marris E
Nature; 2005 Mar; 434(7029):10-2. PubMed ID: 15744265
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Realizing the promise of community-based participatory research: community partners get organized!
Seifer SD; Greene-Moton E
Prog Community Health Partnersh; 2007; 1(4):291-4. PubMed ID: 20208206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Growing pains for NIH grant review.
Bonetta L
Cell; 2006 Jun; 125(5):823-5. PubMed ID: 16751088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Quantum grants: request for applications from the NIBIB.
Harrington DP
J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Jun; 3(6):398-9. PubMed ID: 17412092
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Sponsored research agreements: balancing risks and benefits.
Chamblee DA
Acad Med; 1994 Jun; 69(6):466-7. PubMed ID: 8003160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Why China needs an NIH.
Nature; 2004 Apr; 428(6984):679. PubMed ID: 15085093
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. NINDS delves into drug development.
Wickelgren I
Science; 2002 Jul; 297(5579):180. PubMed ID: 12114605
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Research funding. Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system.
Hegde D; Mowery DC
Science; 2008 Dec; 322(5909):1797-8. PubMed ID: 19095928
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Research funding. Science funding and short-term economic activity.
Weinberg BA; Owen-Smith J; Rosen RF; Schwarz L; Allen BM; Weiss RE; Lane J
Science; 2014 Apr; 344(6179):41-3. PubMed ID: 24700844
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. American Idol and NIH grant review--redux.
Munger K
Cell; 2006 Nov; 127(4):661-2; author reply 664-5. PubMed ID: 17110320
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Peer review reviewed.
Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A risk worth taking.
Nature; 2008 Oct; 455(7217):1150. PubMed ID: 18971970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Biomedical institute suffers growing pains.
Check E
Nature; 2002 Aug; 418(6897):470. PubMed ID: 12152045
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.
Lauer MS; Nakamura R
N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review at NIH: a conversation with CSR director Toni Scarpa.
Scarpa T
Physiologist; 2010 Jun; 53(3):65, 67-9. PubMed ID: 20550006
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The readers' NIH.
Gardner CA
Science; 1992 Oct; 258(5082):530-1. PubMed ID: 1296608
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. NIH needs a makeover.
Dey SK
Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
