Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Search results

Items: 7

1.

The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey.

Gallo SA, Thompson LA, Schmaling KB, Glisson SR.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Jul 29. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00123-1. [Epub ahead of print]

PMID:
31359327
2.

Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.

Barnett AG, Glisson SR, Gallo S.

Version 2. F1000Res. 2018 Jul 9 [revised 2018 Jan 1];7:1030. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15479.2. eCollection 2018.

3.

The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications.

Gallo SA, Sullivan JH, Glisson SR.

PLoS One. 2016 Oct 21;11(10):e0165147. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165147. eCollection 2016.

4.

A retrospective analysis of the effect of discussion in teleconference and face-to-face scientific peer-review panels.

Carpenter AS, Sullivan JH, Deshmukh A, Glisson SR, Gallo SA.

BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 8;5(9):e009138. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009138.

5.

Frequency and Type of Conflicts of Interest in the Peer Review of Basic Biomedical Research Funding Applications: Self-Reporting Versus Manual Detection.

Gallo SA, Lemaster M, Glisson SR.

Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Feb;22(1):189-97. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9631-7. Epub 2015 Feb 4.

PMID:
25649072
6.

The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

Gallo SA, Carpenter AS, Irwin D, McPartland CD, Travis J, Reynders S, Thompson LA, Glisson SR.

PLoS One. 2014 Sep 3;9(9):e106474. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106474. eCollection 2014.

7.

Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.

Gallo SA, Carpenter AS, Glisson SR.

PLoS One. 2013 Aug 7;8(8):e71693. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071693. eCollection 2013.

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center