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 *

193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35186273)

  • 21. Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals.
    Buljan I; Pina DG; Marušić A
    F1000Res; 2021; 10():471. PubMed ID: 34394917
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. Overview on Grant Writing for Graduate Student Research.
    Smith D; Chowdhury AS; Oxford JT
    Curr Protoc; 2022 Sep; 2(9):e545. PubMed ID: 36098616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Using a Virtual Community (the Health Equity Learning Collaboratory) to Support Early-Stage Investigators Pursuing Grant Funding.
    Hall M; Engler J; Hemming J; Alema-Mensah E; Baez A; Lawson K; Quarshie A; Stiles J; Pemu P; Thompson W; Paulsen D; Smith A; Ofili E
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2018 Oct; 15(11):. PubMed ID: 30380777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. The unfunded grant, now what? Advice, approach, and strategy.
    Hunter CJ; Leiva T; Dudeja V
    Surgery; 2024 Feb; 175(2):317-322. PubMed ID: 37981550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Writing a grant proposal--part 2: research methods--part 2.
    Bliss DZ; Savik K
    J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs; 2005; 32(4):226-9. PubMed ID: 16030461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Can't We Do Better? A cost-benefit analysis of proposal writing in a competitive funding environment.
    Schweiger G
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(4):e0282320. PubMed ID: 37074994
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
    Li D; Agha L
    Science; 2015 Apr; 348(6233):434-8. PubMed ID: 25908820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Writing successful grant applications for preclinical studies.
    Kessel D
    Chest; 2006 Jul; 130(1):296-8. PubMed ID: 16840416
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Secrets to writing a winning grant.
    Sohn E
    Nature; 2020 Jan; 577(7788):133-135. PubMed ID: 31863064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. To apply or not to apply: a survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits.
    von Hippel T; von Hippel C
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(3):e0118494. PubMed ID: 25738742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Not so fast with fast funding.
    Holmes A; Rubin H
    Account Res; 2024 May; 31(4):351-355. PubMed ID: 36190184
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Recommendations for Writing Successful Grant Proposals: An Information Synthesis.
    Wisdom JP; Riley H; Myers N
    Acad Med; 2015 Dec; 90(12):1720-5. PubMed ID: 26200582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. The research grant process: a reference guide for cardiovascular sonographers.
    Bierig SM; Coon P; Korcarz CE; Waggoner AD
    J Am Soc Echocardiogr; 2005 Mar; 18(3):264-7. PubMed ID: 15746717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Concocting that Magic Elixir: Successful Grant Application Writing in Dissemination and Implementation Research.
    Brownson RC; Colditz GA; Dobbins M; Emmons KM; Kerner JF; Padek M; Proctor EK; Stange KC
    Clin Transl Sci; 2015 Dec; 8(6):710-6. PubMed ID: 26577630
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.