Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
about
The transformative nature of transparency in research fundingUsing simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective studyPublishing the research processExamining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review ScoresThe validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategiesGrant application review: the case of transparencyClassical peer review: an empty gunNIH Peer Review: Scored Review Criteria and Overall ImpactPrior publication productivity, grant percentile ranking, and topic-normalized citation impact of NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grantsPercentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded cardiovascular R01 grantsPedagogical Merit Review of Animal Use for Education in CanadaBias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small UniversitiesFunding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panelAssociation of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants.Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in scienceNon-financial conflicts of interest in academic grant evaluation: a qualitative study of multiple stakeholders in FranceSurveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectivesIntroduction to session on undue and disproportionate influences.Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.How psychiatry journals support the unbiased translation of clinical research. A cross-sectional study of editorial policiesAsk not what your REB can do for you; ask what you can do for your REBMenage a quoi? Optimal number of peer reviewers.Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU's Seventh Framework Programme for ResearchThreats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender.Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study.The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers.The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.Reviewer training to assess knowledge translation in funding applications is long overdue.Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals.Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada.Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.
P2860
Q20895790-ec8717d0-4609-bf27-d2e3-b5e2926bb498Q21686059-8C4411EE-0051-4D33-A711-22EECAF7A47AQ21781588-0C7D726B-5BFB-4C68-980B-D6E38ABF6504Q24288660-1B54E0C1-F6FC-48E8-886E-64C32CE64095Q24288679-E881B4F7-1690-4B35-91E8-A9AA3497BF98Q24288795-58074A1E-29AA-4BC8-B822-AEEEFE330551Q24288896-DDC33E47-170F-4691-88FB-1826E8EBCFB4Q24288979-72FD91BB-97BE-40C7-A74C-4DF73D3170E5Q26967625-0B74BF7B-E5C5-41E5-9149-23C1D9B4CFCAQ26967626-F83B91CB-9C25-4F6F-BD51-917A7363E85BQ27336351-F6C46FDC-E8E1-4788-B908-42703586C433Q28601731-B95444F1-0C97-4833-A4A1-CEEE310F8A0AQ29580352-D8A9EB0E-EA6E-4E8E-BF84-13DA2CBAE7DFQ33926420-38321687-1EA8-41AF-92BA-043E82C60E94Q34081578-1F37898A-85B7-45CC-A795-08A36338A642Q34163160-95EB0B88-6F84-4E83-84CA-82453026AFEDQ34230558-4BF3097C-03C9-4AC8-B216-43A9709812F7Q34282595-77C2E64B-46F6-424E-82FE-9BA4D87050C2Q34423516-56ACA6EB-A292-4F13-810D-870F8EC1BD93Q34430726-7BBA19F5-3F6F-4B44-B001-ED566660C668Q35022577-09ADDE17-B2AB-495F-9F9C-3B322B5878A8Q35330164-DCB013CC-0D1B-4B5A-A53E-32705EA157A3Q35591706-59E30574-5C5D-492A-BC17-30B12CEF634FQ35678788-01239D99-C7E9-40A7-8B10-BD6C96DDDEA3Q36004017-8C414AF5-168B-40CE-B69E-1F0D378485F4Q37125329-C5C688B1-5D8D-494C-BC59-1F932971C2CCQ37684790-E69EFE7D-118E-42DD-8D62-7690815F4004Q48156369-131644E1-57EC-4EFD-890D-780AE9A8177DQ49932707-6AF5A613-70F2-4C0E-92C8-05D6EB280B37Q55082722-8021FF65-6321-4693-88B7-A16ADEBF0382Q55365347-05A8F3EC-E7EF-42D3-96D6-C36064D4A53CQ55526711-CDC77929-CF79-47A3-89D0-23C7B3B0ADFF
P2860
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
description
2007 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2007 թուականի Ապրիլին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2007 թվականի ապրիլին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2007年の論文
@ja
2007年論文
@yue
2007年論文
@zh-hant
2007年論文
@zh-hk
2007年論文
@zh-mo
2007年論文
@zh-tw
2007年论文
@wuu
name
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@ast
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en-gb
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@nl
type
label
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@ast
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en-gb
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@nl
prefLabel
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@ast
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en-gb
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@nl
P2860
P3181
P1476
Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications
@en
P2860
P3181
P356
10.1002/14651858.MR000003.PUB2
P577
2007-04-18T00:00:00Z