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 *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26137884)

  • 1. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.
    Herbert DL; Graves N; Clarke P; Barnett AG
    BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e008380. PubMed ID: 26137884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Face-to-face panel meetings versus remote evaluation of fellowship applications: simulation study at the Swiss National Science Foundation.
    Bieri M; Roser K; Heyard R; Egger M
    BMJ Open; 2021 May; 11(5):e047386. PubMed ID: 33952554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 'Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?': observations on how peer review panels function.
    Coveney J; Herbert DL; Hill K; Mow KE; Graves N; Barnett A
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2017; 2():19. PubMed ID: 29451548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review: an observational study.
    Barnett AG; Herbert DL; Campbell M; Daly N; Roberts JA; Mudge A; Graves N
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2015 Feb; 15():55. PubMed ID: 25888975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers.
    Herbert DL; Barnett AG; Clarke P; Graves N
    BMJ Open; 2013 May; 3(5):. PubMed ID: 23793700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers.
    Barnett AG; Graves N; Clarke P; Herbert D
    BMJ Open; 2015 Jan; 5(1):e006912. PubMed ID: 25596201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Involving Patient Partners in the KRESCENT Peer Review: Intent, Process, Challenges, and Opportunities.
    Fowler EA; Bell K; Burns K; Chiazzese A; DeSerres SA; Foster BJ; Hartwig S; Herrington G; James MT; Jensen V; Jones N; Kidston S; Lemay S; Levin A; MacPhee A; McCutcheon S; Ravani P; Samuel S; Scholey J; Takano T; Tangri N; Verdin N; Alexander RT; Clase CM
    Can J Kidney Health Dis; 2022; 9():20543581221136402. PubMed ID: 36406869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.
    Shepherd J; Frampton GK; Pickett K; Wyatt JC
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0196914. PubMed ID: 29750807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A randomized trial of fellowships for early career researchers finds a high reliability in funding decisions.
    Clarke P; Herbert D; Graves N; Barnett AG
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():147-51. PubMed ID: 26004515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. To fund or not to fund?
    Shailes S
    Elife; 2017 Sep; 6():. PubMed ID: 28956753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Networking and knowledge exchange to promote the formation of transdisciplinary coalitions and levels of agreement among transdisciplinary peer reviewers.
    Lobb R; Petermann L; Manafo E; Keen D; Kerner J
    J Public Health Manag Pract; 2013; 19(1):E9-20. PubMed ID: 22990496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond.
    Gerhardus A; Becher H; Groenewegen P; Mansmann U; Meyer T; Pfaff H; Puhan M; Razum O; Rehfuess E; Sauerborn R; Strech D; Wissing F; Zeeb H; Hummers-Pradier E
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 Jun; 14(1):43. PubMed ID: 27297230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.
    Liaw L; Freedman JE; Becker LB; Mehta NN; Liscum L;
    Circ Res; 2017 Aug; 121(4):e9-e19. PubMed ID: 28684631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Guideline for the assessment of clinical research proposals. Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social].
    Mejía-Aranguré JM; Grijalva-Otero I; Majluf-Cruz A; Cruz-López M; Núñez-Enríquez JC; Salamanca-Gómez FA
    Cir Cir; 2013; 81(4):357-64. PubMed ID: 25063904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.