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 *

130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36214095)

  • 1. Effective or predatory funding? Evaluating the hidden costs of grant applications.
    Dresler M; Buddeberg E; Endesfelder U; Haaker J; Hof C; Kretschmer R; Pflüger D; Schmidt F
    Immunol Cell Biol; 2023 Feb; 101(2):104-111. PubMed ID: 36214095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond.
    Gerhardus A; Becher H; Groenewegen P; Mansmann U; Meyer T; Pfaff H; Puhan M; Razum O; Rehfuess E; Sauerborn R; Strech D; Wissing F; Zeeb H; Hummers-Pradier E
    Health Res Policy Syst; 2016 Jun; 14(1):43. PubMed ID: 27297230
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.
    Burns KEA; Straus SE; Liu K; Rizvi L; Guyatt G
    PLoS Med; 2019 Oct; 16(10):e1002935. PubMed ID: 31613898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.
    Fang H
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2015 Oct; 21(5):1285-96. PubMed ID: 25143309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Community review: a robust and scalable selection system for resource allocation within open science and innovation communities.
    Graham CLB; Landrain TE; Vjestica A; Masselot C; Lawton E; Blondel L; Haenal L; Greshake Tzovaras B; Santolini M
    F1000Res; 2022; 11():1440. PubMed ID: 38283124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Supporting grant reviewers through the scientometric ranking of applicants.
    Győrffy B; Weltz B; Szabó I
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(1):e0280480. PubMed ID: 36662799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Impact of research investment on scientific productivity of junior researchers.
    Farrokhyar F; Bianco D; Dao D; Ghert M; Andruszkiewicz N; Sussman J; Ginsberg JS
    Transl Behav Med; 2016 Dec; 6(4):659-668. PubMed ID: 27351991
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. It's money! Real-world grant experience through a student-run, peer-reviewed program.
    Dumanis SB; Ullrich L; Washington PM; Forcelli PA
    CBE Life Sci Educ; 2013; 12(3):419-28. PubMed ID: 24006391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Government funding of cancer research in Brazil.
    Silva CFD; de Lima LD; Garcia Serpa Osorio-de-Castro C
    J Cancer Policy; 2021 Dec; 30():100302. PubMed ID: 35559798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. FENS-Kavli Network of Excellence: Postponed, non-competitive peer review for research funding.
    Dresler M
    Eur J Neurosci; 2023 Dec; 58(12):4441-4448. PubMed ID: 36085597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.
    Barnett A; Page K; Dyer C; Cramb S
    Elife; 2022 Apr; 11():. PubMed ID: 35373737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities.
    Murray DL; Morris D; Lavoie C; Leavitt PR; MacIsaac H; Masson ME; Villard MA
    PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155876. PubMed ID: 27258385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Icing or cake? Grant competitions as a model for funding chronic disease prevention in Tasmania, Australia.
    Loblay V; Garvey K; Shiell A; Kavanagh S; Hawe P
    Health Promot Int; 2022 Oct; 37(5):. PubMed ID: 36166260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success.
    Guyer RA; Schwarze ML; Gosain A; Maggard-Gibbons M; Keswani SG; Goldstein AM
    Surgery; 2021 Dec; 170(6):1727-1731. PubMed ID: 34294451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.