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 *

172 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31359327)

  • 1. The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.
    Gallo SA; Thompson LA; Schmaling KB; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):761-782. PubMed ID: 31359327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.
    Burns KEA; Straus SE; Liu K; Rizvi L; Guyatt G
    PLoS Med; 2019 Oct; 16(10):e1002935. PubMed ID: 31613898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The role of lay panelists on grant review panels.
    Monahan A; Stewart DE
    Chronic Dis Can; 2003; 24(2-3):70-4. PubMed ID: 12959677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Training patients to review scientific reports for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: an observational study.
    Ivlev I; Vander Ley KJ; Wiedrick J; Lesley K; Forester A; Webb R; Broitman M; Eden KB
    BMJ Open; 2019 Sep; 9(9):e028732. PubMed ID: 31542741
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Perspectives on involvement in the peer-review process: surveys of patient and public reviewers at two journals.
    Schroter S; Price A; Flemyng E; Demaine A; Elliot J; Harmston RR; Richards T; Staniszewska S; Stephens R
    BMJ Open; 2018 Sep; 8(9):e023357. PubMed ID: 30185581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.
    Conix S; De Block A; Vaesen K
    F1000Res; 2021; 10():1126. PubMed ID: 35186273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB; Thompson LA; Glisson SR
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2020; 5():7. PubMed ID: 32467777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.
    Barnett A; Page K; Dyer C; Cramb S
    Elife; 2022 Apr; 11():. PubMed ID: 35373737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The Architecture of an Internal, Scientific, Presubmission Review Program Designed to Increase the Impact and Success of Grant Proposals and Manuscripts.
    Johnson MO; Neilands TB; Kegeles SM; Gaffney S; Lightfoot MA
    Acad Med; 2020 Feb; 95(2):200-206. PubMed ID: 31990724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Supporting grant reviewers through the scientometric ranking of applicants.
    Győrffy B; Weltz B; Szabó I
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(1):e0280480. PubMed ID: 36662799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Tubach F; Amiel P; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35247. PubMed ID: 22496913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers.
    Mughal A; Wahlberg KJ; Li Z; Flyer JN; Olson NC; Cushman M
    Res Pract Thromb Haemost; 2021 Jul; 5(5):e12555. PubMed ID: 34263104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.