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 *

258 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28061509)

  • 21. Grant Review Feedback: Appropriateness and Usefulness.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB; Thompson LA; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2021 Mar; 27(2):18. PubMed ID: 33733708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Gender equity in planning, development and management of human resources for health: a scoping review.
    El Arnaout N; Chehab RF; Rafii B; Alameddine M
    Hum Resour Health; 2019 Jul; 17(1):52. PubMed ID: 31296235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Gender bias in scholarly peer review.
    Helmer M; Schottdorf M; Neef A; Battaglia D
    Elife; 2017 Mar; 6():. PubMed ID: 28322725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method.
    Tricco AC; Soobiah C; Antony J; Cogo E; MacDonald H; Lillie E; Tran J; D'Souza J; Hui W; Perrier L; Welch V; Horsley T; Straus SE; Kastner M
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 May; 73():19-28. PubMed ID: 26891949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomized trial.
    van Rooyen S; Godlee F; Evans S; Smith R; Black N
    JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 9676666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Physician engagement in hospitals: a scoping review protocol.
    Perreira T; Perrier L; Prokopy M; Jonker A
    BMJ Open; 2018 Jan; 8(1):e018837. PubMed ID: 29306889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports.
    Severin A; Martins J; Heyard R; Delavy F; Jorstad A; Egger M
    BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035058. PubMed ID: 32819934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Intramural pilot funding and internal grant reviews increase research capacity at a school of nursing.
    Kulage KM; Larson EL
    Nurs Outlook; 2018; 66(1):11-17. PubMed ID: 28669559
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Ethics of reviewing scientific publications.
    Napolitani F; Petrini C; Garattini S
    Eur J Intern Med; 2017 May; 40():22-25. PubMed ID: 28038824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration.
    Ceci SJ; Kahn S; Williams WM
    Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2023 Jul; 24(1):15-73. PubMed ID: 37098793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Evaluation of medical research performance--position paper of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF).
    Herrmann-Lingen C; Brunner E; Hildenbrand S; Loew TH; Raupach T; Spies C; Treede RD; Vahl CF; Wenz HJ
    Ger Med Sci; 2014; 12():Doc11. PubMed ID: 24971044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?
    Kaatz A; Lee YG; Potvien A; Magua W; Filut A; Bhattacharya A; Leatherberry R; Zhu X; Carnes M
    Acad Med; 2016 Aug; 91(8):1080-8. PubMed ID: 27276003
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.
    Demicheli V; Di Pietrantonj C
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2007 Apr; 2007(2):MR000003. PubMed ID: 17443627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Positive bias for European men in
    Holst S; Hägg S
    F1000Res; 2017; 6():2145. PubMed ID: 30135712
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Gender differences in emergency medicine resident assessment: A scoping review.
    Menchetti I; Eagles D; Ghanem D; Leppard J; Fournier K; Cheung WJ
    AEM Educ Train; 2022 Oct; 6(5):e10808. PubMed ID: 36189450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. The role of women in Brazilian ethnobiology: challenges and perspectives.
    da Silva TC; de Medeiros PM; Hanazaki N; da Fonseca-Kruel VS; Hora JSL; de Medeiros SG
    J Ethnobiol Ethnomed; 2019 Aug; 15(1):44. PubMed ID: 31462287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Overcoming the gender bias in ecology and evolution: is the double-anonymized peer review an effective pathway over time?
    Cássia-Silva C; Silva Rocha B; Fernanda Liévano-Latorre L; Sobreiro MB; Diele-Viegas LM
    PeerJ; 2023; 11():e15186. PubMed ID: 37065686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes.
    Nakamura RK; Mann LS; Lindner MD; Braithwaite J; Chen MC; Vancea A; Byrnes N; Durrant V; Reed B
    Elife; 2021 Oct; 10():. PubMed ID: 34665132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.