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)

  • 21. Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.
    Barnett AG; Glisson SR; Gallo S
    F1000Res; 2018; 7():1030. PubMed ID: 30345025
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications.
    Gallo SA; Sullivan JH; Glisson SR
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(10):e0165147. PubMed ID: 27768760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Researchers, Patients, and Stakeholders Evaluating Comparative-Effectiveness Research: A Mixed-Methods Study of the PCORI Reviewer Experience.
    Forsythe LP; Frank LB; Hemphill R; Tafari AT; Szydlowski V; Lauer M; Goertz C; Clauser S
    Value Health; 2018 Oct; 21(10):1161-1167. PubMed ID: 30314616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Are numerical scores important for grant assessment? A cross-sectional study.
    Buljan I; Pina DG; Mijatović A; Marušić A
    F1000Res; 2023; 12():1216. PubMed ID: 39220606
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?: An Empirical Investigation Using the Example of the Austrian Science Fund.
    Mutz R; Bornmann L; Daniel HD
    Z Psychol; 2012; 220(2):121-129. PubMed ID: 23480982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Reviewer agreement trends from four years of electronic submissions of conference abstract.
    Rowe BH; Strome TL; Spooner C; Blitz S; Grafstein E; Worster A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Mar; 6():14. PubMed ID: 16545143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
    Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
    BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Grant reviewer perceptions of the quality, effectiveness, and influence of panel discussion.
    Gallo SA; Schmaling KB; Thompson LA; Glisson SR
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2020; 5():7. PubMed ID: 32467777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. A peek behind the curtain: peer review and editorial decision making at Stroke.
    Sposato LA; Ovbiagele B; Johnston SC; Fisher M; Saposnik G;
    Ann Neurol; 2014 Aug; 76(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 25043350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Editors' requests of peer reviewers: a study and a proposal.
    Frank E
    Prev Med; 1996; 25(2):102-4. PubMed ID: 8860274
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Are Reviewers' Scores Influenced by Citations to Their Own Work? An Analysis of Submitted Manuscripts and Peer Reviewer Reports.
    Schriger DL; Kadera SP; von Elm E
    Ann Emerg Med; 2016 Mar; 67(3):401-406.e6. PubMed ID: 26518378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Examining uncertainty in journal peer reviewers' recommendations: a cross-sectional study.
    Barnett A; Allen L; Aldcroft A; Lash TL; McCreanor V
    R Soc Open Sci; 2024 Sep; 11(9):240612. PubMed ID: 39263450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.
    Gallo SA; Thompson LA; Schmaling KB; Glisson SR
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Apr; 26(2):761-782. PubMed ID: 31359327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Non-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in France.
    Abdoul H; Perrey C; Tubach F; Amiel P; Durand-Zaleski I; Alberti C
    PLoS One; 2012; 7(4):e35247. PubMed ID: 22496913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.