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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37796852)

  • 1. Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications.
    Tamblyn R; Girard N; Hanley J; Habib B; Mota A; Khan KM; Ardern CL
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(10):e0292306. PubMed ID: 37796852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications.
    Mayo NE; Brophy J; Goldberg MS; Klein MB; Miller S; Platt RW; Ritchie J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 16828678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.
    Witteman HO; Hendricks M; Straus S; Tannenbaum C
    Lancet; 2019 Feb; 393(10171):531-540. PubMed ID: 30739688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
    Marsh HW; Jayasinghe UW; Bond NW
    Am Psychol; 2008 Apr; 63(3):160-8. PubMed ID: 18377106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices.
    Derrick GE; Zimmermann A; Greaves H; Best J; Klavans R
    Res Eval; 2023 Oct; 32(4):648-657. PubMed ID: 38312111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. A randomized trial of fellowships for early career researchers finds a high reliability in funding decisions.
    Clarke P; Herbert D; Graves N; Barnett AG
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jan; 69():147-51. PubMed ID: 26004515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.