Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 190

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 20520019)

1.

Commentary: new guidelines for NIH peer review: improving the system or undermining it?

Spiegel AM.

Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):746-8. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d7e130.

PMID:
20520019
2.
3.

Growing pains for NIH grant review.

Bonetta L.

Cell. 2006 Jun 2;125(5):823-5.

4.

National institutes of health funding for surgical research.

Mann M, Tendulkar A, Birger N, Howard C, Ratcliffe MB.

Ann Surg. 2008 Feb;247(2):217-21. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181568e26.

PMID:
18216525
5.

Outcomes of National Institutes of Health peer review of clinical grant applications.

Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Miller Sostek A, Hoffmann R, Malik K, Stanfield B.

J Investig Med. 2006 Jan;54(1):13-9.

PMID:
16409886
6.

Enhancing NIH grant peer review: a broader perspective.

Bonetta L.

Cell. 2008 Oct 17;135(2):201-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.09.051.

7.

Research funding: peer review at NIH.

Scarpa T.

Science. 2006 Jan 6;311(5757):41. No abstract available.

PMID:
16400135
8.

NIH needs a makeover.

Dey SK.

Science. 2009 Aug 21;325(5943):944. doi: 10.1126/science.325_944b. No abstract available.

PMID:
19696331
9.

A metareview at the NIH.

[No authors listed]

Nat Med. 2008 Apr;14(4):351. doi: 10.1038/nm0408-351.

PMID:
18391922
10.

Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research.

Rangel SJ, Efron B, Moss RL.

Ann Surg. 2002 Sep;236(3):277-86; discussion 286-7.

11.

Science policy. The NIH budget in the "postdoubling" era.

Korn D, Rich RR, Garrison HH, Golub SH, Hendrix MJ, Heinig SJ, Masters BS, Turman RJ.

Science. 2002 May 24;296(5572):1401-2. No abstract available.

PMID:
12029114
12.

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.

13.

Peer review at NIH: a conversation with CSR director Toni Scarpa.

Scarpa T.

Physiologist. 2010 Jun;53(3):65, 67-9. No abstract available.

PMID:
20550006
14.

Understanding the NIH review process: a brief guide to writing grant proposals in neurotoxicology.

Audesirk G, Burbacher T, Guilarte TR, Laughlin NK, Lopachin R, Suszkiw J, Tilson H.

Neurotoxicology. 1999 Feb;20(1):91-7.

PMID:
10091862
15.

NIH plans peer-review overhaul.

Marshall E.

Science. 1997 May 9;276(5314):888-9. No abstract available.

PMID:
9163031
16.

'No change' while NIH revises peer review.

Wadman M.

Nature. 1997 Jun 12;387(6634):642. No abstract available.

PMID:
9192875
17.

Recent changes in NIH peer review system.

Demsey A.

Physiologist. 1988 Dec;31(6):155-6. No abstract available.

PMID:
3237781
18.

NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research.

Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E.

JAMA. 2004 Feb 18;291(7):836-43.

PMID:
14970062
19.

American Idol and NIH grant review--redux.

Munger K.

Cell. 2006 Nov 17;127(4):661-2; author reply 664-5. No abstract available.

20.

NIH consultant finds little evidence of bias against clinical researchers.

Brainard J.

Chron High Educ. 2005 Mar 18;51(28):A23. No abstract available.

PMID:
15835080
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk