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.
22. Varmus speaks out on need to boost clinical research. Gavaghan H Nature; 1994 Nov; 372(6502):118. PubMed ID: 7969431 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Dentistry: retrospect and prospect. Morris AL J Am Dent Assoc; 1973 Oct; 87(5):992-7. PubMed ID: 4584168 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH. Lauer MS; Nakamura R N Engl J Med; 2015 Nov; 373(20):1893-5. PubMed ID: 26559568 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Shattuck lecture--will partisan politics determine the nature and quality of health care? An open letter to President Nixon and the Democratic Nominee. Anlyan WG N Engl J Med; 1972 Jun; 286(22):1184-6. PubMed ID: 5021333 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. National Institutes of Health. Two strikes and you're out, grant applicants learn. Kaiser J Science; 2008 Oct; 322(5900):358. PubMed ID: 18927363 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. NIH revises rules of conflict of interest of grant peer reviewers. Shalev M Lab Anim (NY); 2004 Mar; 33(3):15-6. PubMed ID: 15235618 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. NIH needs a makeover. Dey SK Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Looking to NSF as an NIH model. Yost WA Science; 2011 Aug; 333(6046):1093. PubMed ID: 21868657 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Peer review of researchgrant applications at the National Institutes of Health 2: review by an initial review group. Henley C Fed Proc; 1977 Aug; 36(9):2186-90. PubMed ID: 885260 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. From progress to regression: biomedical research funding. Mandel HG; Vesell ES J Clin Invest; 2004 Oct; 114(7):872-6. PubMed ID: 15467821 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 1: the assignment and referral processes. Henley C Fed Proc; 1977 Jul; 36(8):2066-8. PubMed ID: 872944 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. A Nobel lesson: the grant behind the prize. Berg JM Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5865):900-1. PubMed ID: 18276870 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Proposals for improving the Peer Review System of the National Institutes of Health. Kirschstein RL Clin Res; 1977 Dec; 25(5):295-6. PubMed ID: 10304717 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. On incentives for innovation. Alberts B Science; 2009 Nov; 326(5957):1163. PubMed ID: 19965437 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Peer review. NIH urged to focus on new ideas, new applicants. Kaiser J Science; 2008 Feb; 319(5867):1169. PubMed ID: 18309051 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. National Institutes of Health. Grants 'below payline' rise to help new investigators. Kaiser J Science; 2009 Sep; 325(5948):1607. PubMed ID: 19779159 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Behavioral medicine and the peer review process. Weiss SM J Behav Med; 1978 Sep; 1(3):337-9. PubMed ID: 755866 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]