Literature DB >> 19168745

NIH peer review reform--change we need, or lipstick on a pig?

Ferric C Fang, Arturo Casadevall.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2009        PMID： 19168745      PMCID： PMC2643622          DOI： 10.1128/IAI.01567-08

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Immun        ISSN： 0019-9567            Impact factor:   3.441


× No keyword cloud information.
  19 in total

1.  American Idol and NIH Grant Review.

Authors:  Michele Pagano
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2006-08-25       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  NIH funding: what does the future look like?

Authors:  Leo T Furcht
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-04-13       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Scientific publishing. U.S. output flattens, and NSF wonders why.

Authors:  Jeffrey Mervis
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Speaking out about U.S. science output.

Authors:  John P Moore
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-11-09       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  222 NIH grants: 22 researchers.

Authors:  Eric Hand
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  A metareview at the NIH.

Authors: 
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Glen W. Hartman Lecture. Science, creativity, and serendipity.

Authors:  M A Meyers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?

Authors:  S Wessely
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-07-25       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Assessing track records.

Authors:  G Lewison; J Anderson; J Jack
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1995-10-26       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  The system is broken.

Authors:  Gregory A Petsko
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2006-03-30       Impact factor: 13.583
View more
  12 in total

1.  Reforming science: structural reforms.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2011-12-19       Impact factor: 3.441

2.  NIH peer review reform.

Authors:  Marc C Torjman
Journal:  Infect Immun       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.441

3.  A generation at risk: young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce.

Authors:  Ronald J Daniels
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Exploring Professional Development for New Investigators Underrepresented in the Federally Funded Biomedical Research Workforce.

Authors:  Japera Hemming; Kristin Eide; Eileen Harwood; Ratib Ali; Zhu Zhu; Jason Cutler
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 1.847

5.  Recommendations for Reviewers of Biomedical Imaging Grant Applications.

Authors:  Mark D Pagel
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  Authorship Trends in the American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Authors:  S Emamzadehfard; A Taree; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2020-04-02       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  The calculus of committee composition.

Authors:  Eric Libby; Leon Glass
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Anthony Bowen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 9.  What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Authors:  Susan Guthrie; Ioana Ghiga; Steven Wooding
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-08-07

10.  Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  mBio       Date:  2016-04-12       Impact factor: 7.867
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.