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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26126111)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals.
    Buljan I; Pina DG; Marušić A
    F1000Res; 2021; 10():471. PubMed ID: 34394917
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems.
    Hodgson C
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1189-95. PubMed ID: 9393374
    [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. 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. A new approach to rater training and certification in a multicenter clinical trial.
    Kobak KA; Lipsitz JD; Williams JB; Engelhardt N; Bellew KM
    J Clin Psychopharmacol; 2005 Oct; 25(5):407-12. PubMed ID: 16160614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals.
    Andejeski Y; Bisceglio IT; Dickersin K; Johnson JE; Robinson SI; Smith HS; Visco FM; Rich IM
    J Womens Health Gend Based Med; 2002 May; 11(4):379-88. PubMed ID: 12150500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact factors: target the funding bodies.
    Insall R
    Nature; 2003 Jun; 423(6940):585. PubMed ID: 12789312
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
    Li D; Agha L
    Science; 2015 Apr; 348(6233):434-8. PubMed ID: 25908820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.
    Hodgson C
    Can J Cardiol; 1995 Nov; 11(10):864-8. PubMed ID: 7489524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale score in published case reports.
    Liang R; Borgundvaag B; McIntyre M; Thwaites C; Ragan K; Wyllie A
    Pharmacotherapy; 2014 Nov; 34(11):1159-66. PubMed ID: 25266970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A novel approach to rater training and certification in multinational trials.
    Jeglic E; Kobak KA; Engelhardt N; Williams JB; Lipsitz JD; Salvucci D; Bryson H; Bellew K
    Int Clin Psychopharmacol; 2007 Jul; 22(4):187-91. PubMed ID: 17519640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [Translation and validation of a French version of the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS)].
    Favre S; Aubry JM; Gex-Fabry M; Ragama-Pardos E; McQuillan A; Bertschy G
    Encephale; 2003; 29(6):499-505. PubMed ID: 15029084
    [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. Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals.
    Crable EL; Biancarelli D; Walkey AJ; Allen CG; Proctor EK; Drainoni ML
    Implement Sci; 2018 May; 13(1):71. PubMed ID: 29843740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research.
    Henly SJ; Dougherty MC
    Nurs Outlook; 2009; 57(1):18-26. PubMed ID: 19150263
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.