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 *

167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36026494)

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

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Amiel P; Tubach F; Gottot S; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(9):e46054. PubMed ID: 23029386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Influence of external peer reviewer scores for funding applications on funding board decisions: a retrospective analysis of 1561 reviews.
    Sorrell L; Mcardle N; Becque T; Payne H; Stuart B; Turner S; Wyatt JC
    BMJ Open; 2018 Dec; 8(12):e022547. PubMed ID: 30552251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Unique Review Criteria and Patient and Stakeholder Reviewers: Analysis of PCORI's Approach to Research Funding.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Tafari AT; Cohen SS; Lauer M; Clauser S; Goertz C; Schrandt S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1152-1160. PubMed ID: 30314615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach.
    Mutz R; Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(10):e48509. PubMed ID: 23119041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
    Pier EL; Brauer M; Filut A; Kaatz A; Raclaw J; Nathan MJ; Ford CE; Carnes M
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 Mar; 115(12):2952-2957. PubMed ID: 29507248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Same review quality in open versus blinded peer review in "Ugeskrift for Læger".
    Vinther S; Nielsen OH; Rosenberg J; Keiding N; Schroeder TV
    Dan Med J; 2012 Aug; 59(8):A4479. PubMed ID: 22849979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Peer review, program officers and science funding.
    Roebber PJ; Schultz DM
    PLoS One; 2011 Apr; 6(4):e18680. PubMed ID: 21533268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    Kravitz RL; Franks P; Feldman MD; Gerrity M; Byrne C; Tierney WM
    PLoS One; 2010 Apr; 5(4):e10072. PubMed ID: 20386704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.
    Pina DG; Buljan I; Hren D; Marušić A
    Elife; 2021 Jan; 10():. PubMed ID: 33439120
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors.
    O'Brien BC; Artino AR; Costello JA; Driessen E; Maggio LA
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0260558. PubMed ID: 34843564
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Variability of Reviewers' Comments in the Peer Review Process for Orthopaedic Research.
    Iantorno SE; Andras LM; Skaggs DL
    Spine Deform; 2016 Jul; 4(4):268-271. PubMed ID: 27927515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. '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]  

  • 19. Enhancing review criteria for dissemination and implementation science grants.
    Stadnick NA; Viglione C; Crable EL; Montoya JL; Gholami M; Su I; Rabin B
    Implement Sci Commun; 2023 Feb; 4(1):17. PubMed ID: 36810106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Zoom fatigue saps grant reviewers' attention.
    Singh Chawla D
    Nature; 2021 Feb; 590(7844):172. PubMed ID: 33473188
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.