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 *

156 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9759777)

  • 1. Peer review of grant applications.
    Sekikawa A; Aaron DJ; Acosta B; Nishimura R; LaPorte RE
    Lancet; 1998 Sep; 352(9133):1064. PubMed ID: 9759777
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Rethinking grant review.
    Nat Neurosci; 2008 Feb; 11(2):119. PubMed ID: 18227790
    [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. Peer review of grant applications.
    Swift M
    Lancet; 1998 Sep; 352(9133):1063-4. PubMed ID: 9759775
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

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

  • 8. Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective.
    Bonetta L
    Cell; 2008 Oct; 135(2):201-4. PubMed ID: 18957192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. NIH: gearing up for the twenty-first century.
    Baldwin W; McCardle P
    Physiologist; 1997 Jun; 40(3):89, 91-3. PubMed ID: 9230629
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Preparing effective grant applications.
    Arnett DK
    Circulation; 2009 Dec; 120(25):2607-12. PubMed ID: 20026793
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. American Idol and NIH Grant Review.
    Pagano M
    Cell; 2006 Aug; 126(4):637-8. PubMed ID: 16923379
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Peer review of research grant applications at the National Institutes of Health 3: review by an advisory board/council.
    Henley C
    Fed Proc; 1977 Sep; 36(10):2335-8. PubMed ID: 892000
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Science policy: Well-funded investigators should receive extra scrutiny.
    Berg JM
    Nature; 2012 Sep; 489(7415):203. PubMed ID: 22972279
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.