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 *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33970719)

  • 1. The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding.
    De Peuter S; Conix S
    Account Res; 2022 Jul; 29(5):324-345. PubMed ID: 33970719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.
    Liu M; Choy V; Clarke P; Barnett A; Blakely T; Pomeroy L
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2020; 5():3. PubMed ID: 32025338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery.
    Fang FC; Casadevall A
    mBio; 2016 Apr; 7(2):e00422-16. PubMed ID: 27073093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Randomization and social affairs: the 1970 draft lottery.
    Fienberg SE
    Science; 1971 Jan; 171(3968):255-61. PubMed ID: 17736218
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Why citizen review might beat peer review at identifying pursuitworthy scientific research.
    Santana C
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2022 Apr; 92():20-26. PubMed ID: 35104722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions.
    Gross K; Bergstrom CT
    PLoS Biol; 2019 Jan; 17(1):e3000065. PubMed ID: 30601806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Grant lottery systems: a winner responds.
    Ackerley D
    Nature; 2020 Mar; 579(7799):343. PubMed ID: 32184488
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Open science and modified funding lotteries can impede the natural selection of bad science.
    Smaldino PE; Turner MA; Contreras Kallens PA
    R Soc Open Sci; 2019 Jul; 6(7):190194. PubMed ID: 31417725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?
    Vaesen K; Katzav J
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0183967. PubMed ID: 28886054
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Blinding peer review.
    Taffe MA
    Elife; 2021 Nov; 10():. PubMed ID: 34816796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Ethical pitfalls in neonatal comparative effectiveness trials.
    Modi N
    Neonatology; 2014; 105(4):350-1. PubMed ID: 24931328
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Normalizing Rejection.
    Conn VS; Zerwic J; Jefferson U; Anderson CM; Killion CM; Smith CE; Cohen MZ; Fahrenwald NL; Herrick L; Topp R; Benefield LE; Loya J
    West J Nurs Res; 2016 Feb; 38(2):137-54. PubMed ID: 26041785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A mid-level approach to modeling scientific communities.
    Harnagel A
    Stud Hist Philos Sci; 2019 Aug; 76():49-59. PubMed ID: 31558209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel.
    Graves N; Barnett AG; Clarke P
    BMJ; 2011 Sep; 343():d4797. PubMed ID: 21951756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.