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 *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8183356)

  • 1. Cautious welcome to NIH peer review reforms.
    Gavaghan H
    Nature; 1994 May; 369(6478):269. PubMed ID: 8183356
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Revamp for NIH grants.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Feb; 451(7182):1035. PubMed ID: 18305502
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Grants, politics, and the NIH.
    Drazen JM; Ingelfinger JR
    N Engl J Med; 2003 Dec; 349(23):2259-61. PubMed ID: 14657434
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Peer review at National Institutes of Health: small steps forward.
    Johnston SC; Hauser SL
    Ann Neurol; 2008 Nov; 64(5):A15-7. PubMed ID: 19067350
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. NIH weighs peer review changes.
    Lang L
    Gastroenterology; 2008 Feb; 134(2):380. PubMed ID: 18242202
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Peer review reviewed.
    Nature; 2007 Sep; 449(7159):115. PubMed ID: 17851475
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Point: Statistical analysis in NIH peer review--identifying innovation.
    Kaplan D
    FASEB J; 2007 Feb; 21(2):305-8. PubMed ID: 17267383
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Peer review at NIH.
    Osthus RC
    Physiologist; 2007 Oct; 50(5):185, 187. PubMed ID: 17990627
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Research funding: peer review at NIH.
    Scarpa T
    Science; 2006 Jan; 311(5757):41. PubMed ID: 16400135
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Italy outsources peer review to NIH.
    Van Noorden R
    Nature; 2009 Jun; 459(7249):900. PubMed ID: 19536229
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Research policy. NIH weighs big changes in peer review.
    Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Dec; 318(5857):1708-9. PubMed ID: 18079373
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. NIH panel to monitor peer review in action.
    Taylor R
    Nature; 1995 Jun; 375(6531):438. PubMed ID: 7777040
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. NIH budget. Peer review under stress.
    Miller G; Couzin J
    Science; 2007 Apr; 316(5823):358-9. PubMed ID: 17446364
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. NIH needs a makeover.
    Dey SK
    Science; 2009 Aug; 325(5943):944. PubMed ID: 19696331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Overhaul of peer review at NIH.
    Fusaro RM
    Lancet; 1999 Nov; 354(9190):1649. PubMed ID: 10560706
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Two facets of peer review and the proper role of study sections.
    Lenard J
    Account Res; 2006; 13(3):277-83. PubMed ID: 17124762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Shorter NIH grant form launches.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 2010 Jan; 463(7277):12-3. PubMed ID: 20054365
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Shortening of NIH RO1 grant applications: your response is important.
    Nairn RS; Sweasy JB
    DNA Repair (Amst); 2007 Jan; 6(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 17157082
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Federal work force. Can outsiders do better in managing NIH grants?
    Kaiser J
    Science; 2003 Mar; 299(5614):1823. PubMed ID: 12649448
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.