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 *

273 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4739656)

  • 21. The peer review system.
    Homburger F
    Fed Proc; 1980 May; 39(7):2349-50. PubMed ID: 7371871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The peer review system.
    Rutman JF
    Fed Proc; 1980 May; 39(7):2349. PubMed ID: 7371870
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Who reads your project-grant application to the National Institutes of Health?
    Eaves GN
    Fed Proc; 1972; 31(1):2-9. PubMed ID: 5009665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Recent changes in NIH peer review system.
    Demsey A
    Physiologist; 1988 Dec; 31(6):155-6. PubMed ID: 3237781
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. NIH peer review system: facts and figures on study sections add up to trouble.
    Fed Proc; 1978 Aug; 37(10):1a-4a. PubMed ID: 581073
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. National Institutes of Health: the lottery.
    Heilman KM
    Ann Neurol; 2007 Jul; 62(1):106. PubMed ID: 17474112
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Peer review: a crisis in confidence.
    Kirschstein RL
    Clin Res; 1986 Oct; 34(4):477-83. PubMed ID: 3780138
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Creativity and peer review.
    Fusaro RM
    Nat Biotechnol; 1999 Dec; 17(12):1146. PubMed ID: 10585676
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Editorial: Peer review under fire.
    Feldmann EG
    J Pharm Sci; 1973 Dec; 62(12):1. PubMed ID: 4762173
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Letter: Peer review system utilized by the NIH and the NSF.
    Fed Proc; 1973 Dec; 32(12):2142-3. PubMed ID: 4753768
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Re: NCNR's review process.
    Cleland V
    Nurs Res; 1989; 38(6):358, 381. PubMed ID: 2587291
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Treatment of young investigators in the National Cancer Program.
    Kalberer JT
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1979 Oct; 63(4):1097-103. PubMed ID: 480383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Peer review in health services research: issues and problems.
    Eichhorn RL; Maurana CA
    Health Serv Res; 1981; 16(3):267-75. PubMed ID: 7298338
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The grant racket.
    Ross PM
    Nature; 1992 Jan; 355(6357):197. PubMed ID: 1731211
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. A proposal for per capita distribution of research funds with administrative flexibility.
    Hirsch HR
    Fed Proc; 1984 Apr; 43(5):7a-8a. PubMed ID: 6705928
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. National Cancer Act 1971-1996. National Cancer Institute/American Cancer Society relationship--June 1996.
    Eyre HJ
    Cancer; 1996 Dec; 78(12):2609-10. PubMed ID: 8952577
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Congress slashes "silly titles".
    Anderson C
    Nature; 1992 May; 357(6376):271. PubMed ID: 1589030
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Some problems facins biomedical research.
    Longo LD
    Fed Proc; 1973 Nov; 32(11):2078-85. PubMed ID: 4752005
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. National Institutes of Health. Changes in peer review target young scientists, heavyweights.
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2008 Jun; 320(5882):1404. PubMed ID: 18556519
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Biodefense. U.S. agencies unveil plan for biosecurity peer review.
    Couzin J
    Science; 2004 Mar; 303(5664):1595. PubMed ID: 15016970
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.