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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31359327)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Peer reviewers' dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences.
    Vallée-Tourangeau G; Wheelock A; Vandrevala T; Harries P
    Humanit Soc Sci Commun; 2022 Mar; 9(1):. PubMed ID: 36530545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. The physician-scientist in Canadian psychiatry.
    Honer WG; Linseman MA
    J Psychiatry Neurosci; 2004 Jan; 29(1):49-56. PubMed ID: 14719050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. 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]  

  • 27. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
    Guthrie S; Ghiga I; Wooding S
    F1000Res; 2017; 6():1335. PubMed ID: 29707193
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Peer review experiences of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States.
    Seeman JI; House MC
    Account Res; 2023 Feb; 30(2):63-76. PubMed ID: 34346803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.
    Barnett AG; Glisson SR; Gallo S
    F1000Res; 2018; 7():1030. PubMed ID: 30345025
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.
    Pier EL; Raclaw J; Kaatz A; Brauer M; Carnes M; Nathan MJ; Ford CE
    Res Eval; 2017 Jan; 26(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 28458466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training.
    Sattler DN; McKnight PE; Naney L; Mathis R
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130450. PubMed ID: 26075884
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators.
    Hammond GW; Lê ML; Novotny T; Caligiuri SPB; Pierce GN; Wade J
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2017 Jun; 15(1):57. PubMed ID: 28629438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications.
    Mayo NE; Brophy J; Goldberg MS; Klein MB; Miller S; Platt RW; Ritchie J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 16828678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. How Do I Review Thee? Let Me Count the Ways: A Comparison of Research Grant Proposal Review Criteria Across US Federal Funding Agencies.
    Falk-Krzesinski HJ; Tobin SC
    J Res Adm; 2015; 46(2):79-94. PubMed ID: 27274713
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(8):e0273813. PubMed ID: 36026494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health.
    Olsson CA; Kennedy WA
    J Urol; 1995 Nov; 154(5):1866-9. PubMed ID: 7563369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.