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.
114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3580946)
1. Why clinical research grant applications fare poorly in review and how to recover. Cuca JM; McLoughlin WJ Cancer Invest; 1987; 5(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 3580946 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. The grant racket. Ross PM Nature; 1992 Jan; 355(6357):197. PubMed ID: 1731211 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The changing face of peer review at the National Institutes of Health. Leppert PC Fertil Steril; 2004 Feb; 81(2):279-86. PubMed ID: 14967360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 1: the assignment and referral processes. Henley C Fed Proc; 1977 Jul; 36(8):2066-8. PubMed ID: 872944 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Peer review at NIH in the 21st Century. Baldwin W; McCardle P FASEB J; 1996 Dec; 10(14):1563-8. PubMed ID: 9002547 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 3: review by an advisory board/council. Henley C Fed Proc; 1977 Sep; 36(10):2335-8. PubMed ID: 892000 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Glimpses of the National Institutes of Health. II: Review systems and evaluation. Smith R Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1988 Mar; 296(6623):691-5. PubMed ID: 3128373 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. NIH peer review of grant applications. Definitions, procedures, and suggestions. Wingate CL Invest Radiol; 1993 Apr; 28 Suppl 2():S38-40. PubMed ID: 8478186 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review: the continual need for reassessment. Levy JA Cancer Invest; 1984; 2(4):311-20. PubMed ID: 6467070 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Sounding board hard times for the national centers. Bunker JP N Engl J Med; 1980 Sep; 303(10):580-2. PubMed ID: 6772951 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. A proposal for per capita distribution of research funds with administrative flexibility. Hirsch HR Fed Proc; 1984 Apr; 43(5):7a-8a. PubMed ID: 6705928 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Shortening of NIH RO1 grant applications: your response is important. Nairn RS; Sweasy JB DNA Repair (Amst); 2007 Jan; 6(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17157082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Grant length and budget stability at the National Institutes of Health. Kalberer JT Science; 1981 Feb; 211(4483):675-80. PubMed ID: 7455705 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Nurturing the biomedical research enterprise. Wyngaarden JB P R Health Sci J; 1986 Aug; 5(2):43-50. PubMed ID: 3823360 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Peer review of health services research grant applications. McFall D Inquiry; 1978 Sep; 15(3):210-6. PubMed ID: 151070 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Role of the National Cancer Institute in the development of cancer centers. VI. Review and evaluation of cancer research center grant applications. Jay GD Cancer; 1972 Apr; 29(4):896-901. PubMed ID: 5017355 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Who reads your project-grant application to the National Institutes of Health? Eaves GN Fed Proc; 1972; 31(1):2-9. PubMed ID: 5009665 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]