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.
2. NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. Fang FC; Bowen A; Casadevall A Elife; 2016 Feb; 5():. PubMed ID: 26880623 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies. Gallo SA; Carpenter AS; Irwin D; McPartland CD; Travis J; Reynders S; Thompson LA; Glisson SR PLoS One; 2014; 9(9):e106474. PubMed ID: 25184367 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications. Eblen MK; Wagner RM; RoyChowdhury D; Patel KC; Pearson K PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155060. PubMed ID: 27249058 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Bibliometric measures and National Institutes of Health funding at colleges of osteopathic medicine, 2006-2010. Suminski RR; Hendrix D; May LE; Wasserman JA; Guillory VJ J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2012 Nov; 112(11):716-24. PubMed ID: 23139342 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Malik K; Ehrenfeld E JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):836-43. PubMed ID: 14970062 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prior publication productivity, grant percentile ranking, and topic-normalized citation impact of NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants. Kaltman JR; Evans FJ; Danthi NS; Wu CO; DiMichele DM; Lauer MS Circ Res; 2014 Sep; 115(7):617-24. PubMed ID: 25214575 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A correlation between National Institutes of Health funding and bibliometrics in neurosurgery. Venable GT; Khan NR; Taylor DR; Thompson CJ; Michael LM; Klimo P World Neurosurg; 2014; 81(3-4):468-72. PubMed ID: 24239737 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Associations Between NIH Funding and Advanced Bibliometric Indices Among Radiological Investigators. Rosenkrantz AB; Jiang A Acad Radiol; 2016 Jun; 23(6):669-74. PubMed ID: 27040181 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators. Boyington JE; Antman MD; Patel KC; Lauer MS Acad Med; 2016 Apr; 91(4):556-62. PubMed ID: 26650674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Scholarly productivity and national institutes of health funding of foundation for anesthesia education and research grant recipients: insights from a bibliometric analysis. Pagel PS; Hudetz JA Anesthesiology; 2015 Sep; 123(3):683-91. PubMed ID: 26114414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health. Taffe MA; Gilpin NW Elife; 2021 Jan; 10():. PubMed ID: 33459595 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The association between scholarly impact and National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. Svider PF; Lopez SA; Husain Q; Bhagat N; Eloy JA; Langer PD Ophthalmology; 2014 Jan; 121(1):423-428. PubMed ID: 24070807 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. Martin MR; Kopstein A; Janice JM PLoS One; 2010 Nov; 5(11):e13526. PubMed ID: 21103331 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications. Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Miller Sostek A; Hoffmann R; Malik K; Stanfield B J Investig Med; 2006 Jan; 54(1):13-9. PubMed ID: 16409886 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Characterization of the peer review network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health. Boyack KW; Chen MC; Chacko G PLoS One; 2014; 9(8):e104244. PubMed ID: 25119140 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons. Narahari AK; Mehaffey JH; Chandrabhatla AS; Hawkins RB; Charles EJ; Roeser ME; Lau C; Ailawadi G J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2022 Mar; 163(3):872-879.e2. PubMed ID: 33676759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants. Doyle JM; Quinn K; Bodenstein YA; Wu CO; Danthi N; Lauer MS Mol Psychiatry; 2015 Sep; 20(9):1030-6. PubMed ID: 26033238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]