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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37917785)

  • 21. Prevalence of Research Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Xie Y; Wang K; Kong Y
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2021 Jun; 27(4):41. PubMed ID: 34189653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Are questionable research practices facilitating new discoveries in sport and exercise medicine? The proportion of supported hypotheses is implausibly high.
    Büttner F; Toomey E; McClean S; Roe M; Delahunt E
    Br J Sports Med; 2020 Nov; 54(22):1365-1371. PubMed ID: 32699001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Characteristics and Outcomes of Research Funded by the American Head and Neck Society Foundation.
    Liu JC; Kupferman M; Kraus D
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Dec; 146(12):1120-1124. PubMed ID: 33119087
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Questionable research practices and cumulative science: The consequences of selective reporting on effect size bias and heterogeneity.
    Anderson SF; Liu X
    Psychol Methods; 2023 Mar; ():. PubMed ID: 36951733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants.
    Liu M; Choy V; Clarke P; Barnett A; Blakely T; Pomeroy L
    Res Integr Peer Rev; 2020; 5():3. PubMed ID: 32025338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. What Research Institutions Can Do to Foster Research Integrity.
    Bouter L
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Aug; 26(4):2363-2369. PubMed ID: 31965429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists.
    Agnoli F; Wicherts JM; Veldkamp CL; Albiero P; Cubelli R
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(3):e0172792. PubMed ID: 28296929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Fifty years of research on questionable research practises in science: quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns.
    Neoh MJY; Carollo A; Lee A; Esposito G
    R Soc Open Sci; 2023 Oct; 10(10):230677. PubMed ID: 37859842
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals.
    Meirmans S
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2024 Feb; 30(1):6. PubMed ID: 38349578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials.
    Damen JA; Heus P; Lamberink HJ; Tijdink JK; Bouter L; Glasziou P; Moher D; Otte WM; Vinkers CH; Hooft L
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Feb; 154():23-32. PubMed ID: 36470577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Applicant Perspectives on the Otolaryngology Residency Application Process.
    Ward M; Pingree C; Laury AM; Bowe SN
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2017 Aug; 143(8):782-787. PubMed ID: 28542682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Personal Motivations and Systemic Incentives: Scientists on Questionable Research Practices.
    Bruton SV; Medlin M; Brown M; Sacco DF
    Sci Eng Ethics; 2020 Jun; 26(3):1531-1547. PubMed ID: 31981051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Academic Anesthesiology Career Development: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of the Role of Foundation for Anesthesiology Education and Research Funding.
    Speck RM; Ward DS; Fleisher LA
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Jun; 126(6):2116-2122. PubMed ID: 29309317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Questionable science and reproducibility in electrical brain stimulation research.
    Héroux ME; Loo CK; Taylor JL; Gandevia SC
    PLoS One; 2017; 12(4):e0175635. PubMed ID: 28445482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.