Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 102

1.

No female mice or cells? NIH reviewers still might score grant OK.

Woitowich NC, Woodruff TK.

Nature. 2019 Jan;565(7737):25. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-07875-z. No abstract available.

PMID:
30573787
2.

Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.

Abdoul H, Perrey C, Amiel P, Tubach F, Gottot S, Durand-Zaleski I, Alberti C.

PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e46054. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046054. Epub 2012 Sep 28.

3.

Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives.

Schroter S, Groves T, Højgaard L.

BMC Med. 2010 Oct 20;8:62. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-62.

4.

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

Pier EL, Brauer M, Filut A, Kaatz A, Raclaw J, Nathan MJ, Ford CE, Carnes M.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 20;115(12):2952-2957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1714379115. Epub 2018 Mar 5.

5.

Shorter NIH grant form launches.

Wadman M.

Nature. 2010 Jan 7;463(7277):12-3. doi: 10.1038/463012b. No abstract available.

PMID:
20054365
6.

NIH: Drop re-review for big grant holders.

Roy HK.

Nature. 2012 Oct 11;490(7419):176. doi: 10.1038/490176a. No abstract available.

PMID:
23060177
7.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.001. Epub 2011 Aug 9.

PMID:
21831594
8.

New rules propose greater scrutiny for NIH grant recipients.

Dove A.

Nat Med. 2006 Jan;12(1):5. No abstract available.

PMID:
16397535
9.

NIH pilots faster feedback for grant resubmissions.

Wadman M.

Nature. 1997 Oct 30;389(6654):898. No abstract available.

PMID:
9353109
10.

Gender bias goes away when grant reviewers focus on the science.

Guglielmi G.

Nature. 2018 Feb 1;554(7690):14-15. doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-01212-0. No abstract available.

PMID:
29388971
11.

NIH funding: The critics respond.

Ioannidis JP, Nicholson JM.

Nature. 2013 Jan 3;493(7430):26. doi: 10.1038/493026c. No abstract available.

PMID:
23282353
12.

NIH funding: It does support innovators.

Salzberg SL.

Nature. 2013 Jan 3;493(7430):26. doi: 10.1038/493026b. No abstract available.

PMID:
23282352
13.

Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond.

Gerhardus A, Becher H, Groenewegen P, Mansmann U, Meyer T, Pfaff H, Puhan M, Razum O, Rehfuess E, Sauerborn R, Strech D, Wissing F, Zeeb H, Hummers-Pradier E.

Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jun 13;14(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0112-5.

14.

Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.

Demicheli V, Di Pietrantonj C.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18;(2):MR000003. Review.

PMID:
17443627
15.

An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators.

Hammond GW, Lê ML, Novotny T, Caligiuri SPB, Pierce GN, Wade J.

Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 Jun 19;15(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0220-x.

16.

NIH funding: Agency rebuts critique.

Santangelo G, Lipman DJ.

Nature. 2013 Jan 3;493(7430):26. doi: 10.1038/493026a. No abstract available.

PMID:
23282354
17.

Hematology grants workshop.

Ferrara JL, Schmaier AH.

Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2002:484-9.

PMID:
12446438
18.

Grant challenges role of peer review in an age of e-mail.

Gammie F.

Nature. 1995 Mar 23;374(6520):295. No abstract available.

PMID:
7885454
19.

NIH funding: Thousand-citation papers are outliers.

Woodgett J.

Nature. 2012 Dec 20;492(7429):356. doi: 10.1038/492356b. No abstract available.

PMID:
23257869
20.

Grant application review: the case of transparency.

Gurwitz D, Milanesi E, Koenig T.

PLoS Biol. 2014 Dec 2;12(12):e1002010. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010. eCollection 2014 Dec. No abstract available.

Supplemental Content

Support Center