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 *

127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38312111)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers.
    Mughal A; Wahlberg KJ; Li Z; Flyer JN; Olson NC; Cushman M
    Res Pract Thromb Haemost; 2021 Jul; 5(5):e12555. PubMed ID: 34263104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Downstream funding success of early career researchers for resubmitted versus new applications: A matched cohort.
    Doyle JM; Baiocchi MT; Kiernan M
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(11):e0257559. PubMed ID: 34793439
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study.
    Turner S; Bull A; Chinnery F; Hinks J; Mcardle N; Moran R; Payne H; Woodford Guegan E; Worswick L; Wyatt JC
    BMJ Open; 2018 Dec; 8(12):e022548. PubMed ID: 30552252
    [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. 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]  

  • 10. Evaluation of a program supporting scholarly productivity for new investigators.
    Mavis B; Katz M
    Acad Med; 2003 Jul; 78(7):757-65. PubMed ID: 12857699
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Patterns of Feedback on the Bridge to Independence: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of NIH Mentored Career Development Award Application Critiques.
    Kaatz A; Dattalo M; Regner C; Filut A; Carnes M
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2016 Jan; 25(1):78-90. PubMed ID: 26418619
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis.
    Herber OR; Bradbury-Jones C; Böling S; Combes S; Hirt J; Koop Y; Nyhagen R; Veldhuizen JD; Taylor J
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 May; 20(1):122. PubMed ID: 32423388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.
    Hesselberg JO; Dalsbø TK; Stromme H; Svege I; Fretheim A
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2023 Nov; 11(11):MR000056. PubMed ID: 38014743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation.
    Jacob RR; Gacad A; Padek M; Colditz GA; Emmons KM; Kerner JF; Chambers DA; Brownson RC
    Implement Sci; 2020 May; 15(1):30. PubMed ID: 32393285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Identification and comparison of key criteria of feedback of funding decisions: mixed-methods analysis of funder and applicant perspectives.
    Fackrell K; Meadmore K; Recio-Saucedo A; Bull A; Fraser S; Blatch-Jones A
    BMJ Open; 2021 Sep; 11(9):e048979. PubMed ID: 34535478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 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.