Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 104

1.

Instructions for repair.

Petsko GA.

Genome Biol. 2006;7(4):106. No abstract available.

PMID:
16808010
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
2.

Peer review reviewed.

[No authors listed]

Nature. 2007 Sep 13;449(7159):115. No abstract available.

PMID:
17851475
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3.

Peer review: a call for help.

Dickson D.

Nature. 1994 Dec 15;372(6507):597. No abstract available.

PMID:
7990944
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4.

The secrets of success.

Smaglik P.

Nature. 2004 Nov 11;432(7014):253. No abstract available.

PMID:
15538377
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5.

German paper chase to end.

Schiermeier Q.

Nature. 2010 Feb 25;463(7284):1009. doi: 10.1038/4631009a. No abstract available.

PMID:
20182483
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6.

UK funding ban sparks protests.

Van Noorden R.

Nature. 2009 Mar 26;458(7237):391. doi: 10.1038/458391a. No abstract available.

PMID:
19325593
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7.

Funding: the research revolution.

Brumfiel G.

Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):975-6. doi: 10.1038/453975a. No abstract available.

PMID:
18563124
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8.

An introduction to grant writing: de-mystifying the process.

Walsh MM, Bowen DM.

J Dent Hyg. 2012 Winter;86(1):11-3. Epub 2012 Feb 6. No abstract available.

PMID:
22309922
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9.

Grant applications with a result-based orientation.

Krumholz HM.

Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 Sep 1;6(5):507-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000562. Epub 2013 Sep 10. No abstract available.

PMID:
24021690
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Article
10.

Peer review is a two-way process.

Fielder A, Vinyard H.

Nature. 1997 Aug 28;388(6645):822. No abstract available.

PMID:
9278036
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11.

Impact: Pack a punch.

Dance A.

Nature. 2013 Oct 17;502(7471):397-8. No abstract available.

PMID:
24137828
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12.

Russian science. Danger to peer review is in eye of beholder.

Pokrovsky V.

Science. 2001 Feb 9;291(5506):959. No abstract available.

PMID:
11232565
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13.

Staying on the mark: a review of grant evaluation.

Doermann H.

Found News. 1982 May-Jun;23(3):4-7. No abstract available.

PMID:
10255511
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14.

No evidence of sexism in peer review.

Grant J, Burden S, Breen G.

Nature. 1997 Dec 4;390(6659):438. No abstract available.

PMID:
9393992
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15.

U.S. science policy. Peer review not popular at Homeland Security.

Bhattacharjee Y.

Science. 2009 Nov 6;326(5954):779. doi: 10.1126/science.326_779. No abstract available.

PMID:
19892948
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16.

Peer review. NIH urged to focus on new ideas, new applicants.

Kaiser J.

Science. 2008 Feb 29;319(5867):1169. doi: 10.1126/science.319.5867.1169. No abstract available.

PMID:
18309051
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17.

National Institutes of Health. Changes in peer review target young scientists, heavyweights.

Kaiser J.

Science. 2008 Jun 13;320(5882):1404. doi: 10.1126/science.320.5882.1404. No abstract available.

PMID:
18556519
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18.

NIH responds to critics on peer review.

Wadman M.

Nature. 2008 Jun 12;453(7197):835. doi: 10.1038/453835a. No abstract available.

PMID:
18548033
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19.

The importance of peer review.

Froman RD.

Res Nurs Health. 2006 Aug;29(4):253-5. No abstract available.

PMID:
16847898
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20.

Sample size and precision in NIH peer review.

Kaplan D, Lacetera N, Kaplan C.

PLoS One. 2008 Jul 23;3(7):e2761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002761.

PMID:
18648494
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk