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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9163031)

  • 1. NIH plans peer-review overhaul.
    Marshall E
    Science; 1997 May; 276(5314):888-9. PubMed ID: 9163031
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 3. 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]  

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

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. NIH plans grant-review overhaul to reduce bias.
    Kozlov M
    Nature; 2022 Dec; 612(7941):602-603. PubMed ID: 36494447
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A metareview at the NIH.
    Nat Med; 2008 Apr; 14(4):351. PubMed ID: 18391922
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Growing pains for NIH grant review.
    Bonetta L
    Cell; 2006 Jun; 125(5):823-5. PubMed ID: 16751088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 10. NIH panel urges overhaul of the rating system for grants.
    Marshall E
    Science; 1996 May; 272(5266):1257. PubMed ID: 8650533
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Biomedical policy. NIH wins an exemption from HHS peer-review overhaul.
    Marshall E
    Science; 2001 Aug; 293(5533):1234. PubMed ID: 11509695
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Peer review at NIH: a conversation with CSR director Toni Scarpa.
    Scarpa T
    Physiologist; 2010 Jun; 53(3):65, 67-9. PubMed ID: 20550006
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. American Idol and NIH grant review--redux.
    Munger K
    Cell; 2006 Nov; 127(4):661-2; author reply 664-5. PubMed ID: 17110320
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

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

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. 'No change' while NIH revises peer review.
    Wadman M
    Nature; 1997 Jun; 387(6634):642. PubMed ID: 9192875
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. NIH consultant finds little evidence of bias against clinical researchers.
    Brainard J
    Chron High Educ; 2005 Mar; 51(28):A23. PubMed ID: 15835080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.