218 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33545271)
1. The impact of gender on scientific writing: An observational study of grant proposals.
Franco MC; Rice DB; Schuch HS; Dellagostin OA; Cenci MS; Moher D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 136():37-43. PubMed ID: 33545271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Applications submitted and grants awarded to men and women in nationwide biomedical competitive research, in 2006, in Spain.
Peiró-Pérez R; Colomer-Revuelta C; Blázquez-Herranz M; Gómez-López F
J Epidemiol Community Health; 2007 Dec; 61 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii17-19. PubMed ID: 18000109
[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. Profile and scientific output of researchers recipients of CNPq productivity grant in the field of medicine.
Martelli DR; Oliveira MCL; Pinheiro SV; Santos ML; Dias V; Silva ACSE; Martelli-Júnior H; Oliveira EA
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992); 2019 Jun; 65(5):682-690. PubMed ID: 31166446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.
Magua W; Zhu X; Bhattacharya A; Filut A; Potvien A; Leatherberry R; Lee YG; Jens M; Malikireddy D; Carnes M; Kaatz A
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2017 May; 26(5):560-570. PubMed ID: 28281870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. New physician-investigators receiving National Institutes of Health research project grants: a historical perspective on the "endangered species".
Dickler HB; Fang D; Heinig SJ; Johnson E; Korn D
JAMA; 2007 Jun; 297(22):2496-501. PubMed ID: 17565084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Research on Skin Cancer-Related Behaviors and Outcomes in the NIH Grant Portfolio, 2000-2014: Skin Cancer Intervention Across the Cancer Control Continuum (SCI-3C).
Perna FM; Dwyer LA; Tesauro G; Taber JM; Norton WE; Hartman AM; Geller AC
JAMA Dermatol; 2017 May; 153(5):398-405. PubMed ID: 28329179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.
Guglielmi G
Nature; 2018 Feb; 554(7690):14-15. PubMed ID: 29388971
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network's Grant Writing Coaching Programs.
Weber-Main AM; McGee R; Eide Boman K; Hemming J; Hall M; Unold T; Harwood EM; Risner LE; Smith A; Lawson K; Engler J; Steer CJ; Buchwald D; Jones HP; Manson SM; Ofili E; Schwartz NB; Vishwanatha JK; Okuyemi KS
PLoS One; 2020; 15(11):e0241851. PubMed ID: 33166315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Gender Disparity in the Authorship of Biomedical Research Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study.
Muric G; Lerman K; Ferrara E
J Med Internet Res; 2021 Apr; 23(4):e25379. PubMed ID: 33735097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback.
Biernat M; Carnes M; Filut A; Kaatz A
Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2020 Jan; 46(1):140-154. PubMed ID: 31088206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.
Tricco AC; Thomas SM; Antony J; Rios P; Robson R; Pattani R; Ghassemi M; Sullivan S; Selvaratnam I; Tannenbaum C; Straus SE
PLoS One; 2017; 12(1):e0169718. PubMed ID: 28061509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.
Forscher PS; Cox WTL; Brauer M; Devine PG
Nat Hum Behav; 2019 Mar; 3(3):257-264. PubMed ID: 30953009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands.
van der Lee R; Ellemers N
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2015 Oct; 112(40):12349-53. PubMed ID: 26392544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. It's money! Real-world grant experience through a student-run, peer-reviewed program.
Dumanis SB; Ullrich L; Washington PM; Forcelli PA
CBE Life Sci Educ; 2013; 12(3):419-28. PubMed ID: 24006391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Gender differences in Dutch research funding over time: A statistical investigation of the innovation scheme 2012-2021.
Albers C; van der Molen SJ; Bol T
PLoS One; 2024; 19(2):e0297311. PubMed ID: 38363750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
