Literature DB >> 26559568

Reviewing Peer Review at the NIH.

Michael S Lauer1, Richard Nakamura.   

Abstract

Recent reports suggest that peer reviews of National Institutes of Health grant applications are at best imprecise predictors of research projects' scientific impact. But these findings may not mean that peer review is failing.

Mesh：

Year:  2015        PMID： 26559568     DOI： 10.1056/NEJMp1507427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN： 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  4 in total

Review 1.  How to Review a Manuscript.

Authors:  Joseph A Hill
Journal:  J Electrocardiol       Date:  2016-01-09       Impact factor: 1.438

Review 2.  Chronic heart failure: Ca(2+), catabolism, and catastrophic cell death.

Authors:  Geoffrey W Cho; Francisco Altamirano; Joseph A Hill
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta       Date:  2016-01-13

3.  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

4.  Clinical trials proposed for the VA Cooperative Studies Program: Success rates and factors impacting approval.

Authors:  David R Burnaska; Grant D Huang; Timothy J O'Leary
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2021-07-09
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.