122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9393374)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.
Tamblyn R; Girard N; Qian CJ; Hanley J
CMAJ; 2018 Apr; 190(16):E489-E499. PubMed ID: 29685909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for Research.
Pina DG; Hren D; Marušić A
PLoS One; 2015; 10(6):e0130753. PubMed ID: 26126111
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration using offline analysis of the transvaginal ultrasound 'sliding sign' technique: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility.
Reid S; Lu C; Casikar I; Mein B; Magotti R; Ludlow J; Benzie R; Condous G
Hum Reprod; 2013 May; 28(5):1237-46. PubMed ID: 23482338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using peer review to improve research and promote collaboration.
Kupfer DJ; Murphree AN; Pilkonis PA; Cameron JL; Giang RT; Dodds NE; Godard KA; Lewis DA
Acad Psychiatry; 2014 Feb; 38(1):5-10. PubMed ID: 24449224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The grant application: making yours stand out across the review cycle.
Hurley AC; Wells N
Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord; 1999; 13 Suppl 1():S120-2. PubMed ID: 10369532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience. Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?
Rothwell PM; Martyn CN
Brain; 2000 Sep; 123 ( Pt 9)():1964-9. PubMed ID: 10960059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency.
Witteman HO; Hendricks M; Straus S; Tannenbaum C
Lancet; 2019 Feb; 393(10171):531-540. PubMed ID: 30739688
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports.
Severin A; Martins J; Heyard R; Delavy F; Jorstad A; Egger M
BMJ Open; 2020 Aug; 10(8):e035058. PubMed ID: 32819934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.
Pina DG; Buljan I; Hren D; Marušić A
Elife; 2021 Jan; 10():. PubMed ID: 33439120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach.
Mutz R; Bornmann L; Daniel HD
PLoS One; 2012; 7(10):e48509. PubMed ID: 23119041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.
Kotchen TA; Lindquist T; Malik K; Ehrenfeld E
JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):836-43. PubMed ID: 14970062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
Marsh HW; Jayasinghe UW; Bond NW
Am Psychol; 2008 Apr; 63(3):160-8. PubMed ID: 18377106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. How Criterion Scores Predict the Overall Impact Score and Funding Outcomes for National Institutes of Health Peer-Reviewed Applications.
Eblen MK; Wagner RM; RoyChowdhury D; Patel KC; Pearson K
PLoS One; 2016; 11(6):e0155060. PubMed ID: 27249058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study.
Herbert DL; Graves N; Clarke P; Barnett AG
BMJ Open; 2015 Jul; 5(7):e008380. PubMed ID: 26137884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System exceeds the cost of giving every qualified researcher a baseline grant.
Gordon R; Poulin BJ
Account Res; 2009; 16(1):13-40. PubMed ID: 19247851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
