127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37045493)
1. Introducing the SURGERY Peer Review Academies.
Weaver ML; Hicks CW
Surgery; 2023 May; 173(5):1111-1112. PubMed ID: 37045493
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. CIHR critics defend face-to-face peer review.
Webster P
CMAJ; 2017 Apr; 189(13):E513. PubMed ID: 28385903
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Urogynecology Early-Career Peer Reviewer Academy.
Brubaker L
Urogynecology (Phila); 2022 Dec; 28(12):795-796. PubMed ID: 36409635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?
Wessely S
Lancet; 1998 Jul; 352(9124):301-5. PubMed ID: 9690424
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Editorial.
Brucker AJ
Retina; 2018 Jan; 38 Suppl 1():S1-S2. PubMed ID: 29232346
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Italy widens peer review of health research.
Abbott A
Nature; 1995 Mar; 374(6520):299. PubMed ID: 7885458
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Institutes experiment with a variety of different appeal processes.
Palmer R
Nat Med; 2012 Sep; 18(9):1313. PubMed ID: 22961146
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Authorship and accountability: the interface between research institutions and journals.
Lulseged S; Assefa G
Ethiop Med J; 2003 Apr; 41(2):109. PubMed ID: 15227969
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Restoring good manners.
Morgan MJ
Nature; 1995 Dec; 378(6557):533. PubMed ID: 8524375
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Academic merit, promotion, and journal peer reviewing: the role of academic institutions in providing proper recognition.
Ferris LE; Brumback RA
J Child Neurol; 2010 May; 25(5):538-40. PubMed ID: 20413802
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Peer review. Australia's proposed U.K.-style merit ranking stirs debate.
Finkel E
Science; 2006 Apr; 312(5771):176. PubMed ID: 16614180
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Salud Ocupacional.
Castleman B; Dement J; Frank AL; Frumkin H; Giannasi F; Gochfeld M; Goldstein BD; Grandjean P; Greenberg M; LaDou J; Lemen RA; Levy BS; Maltoni C; McDiarmid M; Silbergeld EK; Teitelbaum DT; Thebaud-Mony A; Upton AC; Wegman DH
Int J Occup Environ Health; 1998; 4(2):131-3. PubMed ID: 10036367
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. CIHR's face-to-face about-face.
Webster P
CMAJ; 2017 Jul; 189(30):E1003. PubMed ID: 28760841
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Retractions: the lessons for research institutions.
Lancet; 2014 Jul; 384(9938):104. PubMed ID: 25016983
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Biomedicine. A Texas wrangle over cancer research funds.
Kaiser J
Science; 2012 May; 336(6083):789-90. PubMed ID: 22605723
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. U.S. science funding. DOE cures pork project with peer review.
Kintisch E
Science; 2007 May; 316(5825):674. PubMed ID: 17478687
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Dozens of scientists quit Texas cancer agency review panels, claiming that business interests trumped merit.
Epstein K
BMJ; 2012 Oct; 345():e7267. PubMed ID: 23109477
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Research funding. Canadian institutes get windfall without the bother of competition.
Kondro W
Science; 2007 Mar; 315(5820):1779-80. PubMed ID: 17395801
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. News from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS).
Long RM
Pharm Res; 1998 Nov; 15(11):1647-8. PubMed ID: 9833981
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. A reply from Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI).
Cech T; Dixon J; Meehan A; Briggs J; Rhodes C
J Cell Biol; 2007 Jul; 178(3):343; discussion 343. PubMed ID: 17646394
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
