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 *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36662799)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Comparison of scientometric achievements at PhD and scientific output ten years later for 4,790 academic researchers.
    Munkácsy G; Herman P; Győrffy B
    PLoS One; 2022; 17(7):e0271218. PubMed ID: 35895676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 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. Factors influencing the scientific performance of Momentum grant holders: an evaluation of the first 117 research groups.
    Győrffy B; Nagy AM; Herman P; Török Á
    Scientometrics; 2018; 117(1):409-426. PubMed ID: 30220748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. Gender Composition in Biomedical Research Grant Submissions and Grant Review Panels Before Versus During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
    Roubinov D; Griffith KA; Simone NL; Alvarez SE; Thomas M; Mangurian C; Jagsi R
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2023 Apr; 32(4):471-477. PubMed ID: 36795988
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel.
    Graves N; Barnett AG; Clarke P
    BMJ; 2011 Sep; 343():d4797. PubMed ID: 21951756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reviewing knowledgebase and database grant proposals in the life sciences: the role of innovation.
    Karp PD
    Database (Oxford); 2022 Dec; 2022():. PubMed ID: 36520791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study.
    Agarwal R; Tu W
    J Gen Intern Med; 2022 Jan; 37(1):104-109. PubMed ID: 33655385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Grant application and review procedures of the National Institute of Handicapped Research: survey of applicant and peer reviewer opinions.
    Fuhrer MJ; Grabois M
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1985 May; 66(5):318-21. PubMed ID: 3159374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. NHMRC grant applications: a comparison of "track record" scores allocated by grant assessors with bibliometric analysis of publications.
    Nicol MB; Henadeera K; Butler L
    Med J Aust; 2007 Sep; 187(6):348-52. PubMed ID: 17874983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Association of Mentor-to-Program Contact and Applicant Rank Disclosure With Vitreoretinal Fellowship Applicant's Final Match Outcome in 2016 and 2017.
    Christiansen SM; Osher JM; Riemann CD
    JAMA Ophthalmol; 2018 Jun; 136(6):642-647. PubMed ID: 29710103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
    Lauer MS; Danthi NS; Kaltman J; Wu C
    Circ Res; 2015 Jul; 117(3):239-43. PubMed ID: 26089369
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. The impact of gender on scientific writing: An observational study of grant proposals.
    Franco MC; Rice DB; Schuch HS; Dellagostin OA; Cenci MS; Moher D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Aug; 136():37-43. PubMed ID: 33545271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. The productivity and impact of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society Scholar Program: the apparent positive effect of peer review.
    Lichtman MA; Oakes D
    Blood Cells Mol Dis; 2001; 27(6):1020-7. PubMed ID: 11831869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.