375 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7489524)
1. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.
Hodgson C
Can J Cardiol; 1995 Nov; 11(10):864-8. PubMed ID: 7489524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals.
Fogelholm M; Leppinen S; Auvinen A; Raitanen J; Nuutinen A; Väänänen K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):47-52. PubMed ID: 21831594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) consensus on science with treatment recommendations for pediatric and neonatal patients: pediatric basic and advanced life support.
International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation
Pediatrics; 2006 May; 117(5):e955-77. PubMed ID: 16618790
[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. What is submitted and what gets accepted in Indian Pediatrics: analysis of submissions, review process, decision making, and criteria for rejection.
Gupta P; Kaur G; Sharma B; Shah D; Choudhury P
Indian Pediatr; 2006 Jun; 43(6):479-89. PubMed ID: 16820657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [The evaluation of medical research].
Malacara JM
Rev Invest Clin; 1997; 49(4):303-8. PubMed ID: 9707997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems.
Hodgson C
J Clin Epidemiol; 1997 Nov; 50(11):1189-95. PubMed ID: 9393374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.
Marusić A; Mestrović T; Petrovecki M; Marusić M
Croat Med J; 1998 Mar; 39(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 9475799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A retrospective analysis of submissions, acceptance rate, open peer review operations, and prepublication bias of the multidisciplinary open access journal Head & Face Medicine.
Stamm T; Meyer U; Wiesmann HP; Kleinheinz J; Cehreli M; Cehreli ZC
Head Face Med; 2007 Jun; 3():27. PubMed ID: 17562003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Research proposals submitted to the Dutch Investigative Medicine Fund; evaluation of the scientific quality by the Council for Scientific Research (NWO)].
Hoeksema HL; Klasen EC
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 Jan; 145(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 11198965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study.
Wager E; Parkin EC; Tamber PS
BMC Med; 2006 May; 4():13. PubMed ID: 16734897
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [The Editorial Advisory Committee].
Reyes H
Rev Med Chil; 1996 Dec; 124(12):1421-2. PubMed ID: 9334474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Peer review at the American Journal of Roentgenology: how reviewer and manuscript characteristics affected editorial decisions on 196 major papers.
Kliewer MA; DeLong DM; Freed K; Jenkins CB; Paulson EK; Provenzale JM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Dec; 183(6):1545-50. PubMed ID: 15547189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Urology peer review at the National Institutes of Health.
Olsson CA; Kennedy WA
J Urol; 1995 Nov; 154(5):1866-9. PubMed ID: 7563369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Early editorial manuscript screening versus obligate peer review: a randomized trial.
Johnston SC; Lowenstein DH; Ferriero DM; Messing RO; Oksenberg JR; Hauser SL
Ann Neurol; 2007 Apr; 61(4):A10-2. PubMed ID: 17444512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Gender differences in research grant applications for pediatric residents.
Gordon MB; Osganian SK; Emans SJ; Lovejoy FH
Pediatrics; 2009 Aug; 124(2):e355-61. PubMed ID: 19581267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Does exchanging comments of Indian and non-Indian reviewers improve the quality of manuscript reviews?
Das Sinha S; Sahni P; Nundy S
Natl Med J India; 1999; 12(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 10613000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
