Literature DB >> 31266906

Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions.

Wayne P Wahls1.   

Abstract

Year:  2019        PMID： 31266906      PMCID： PMC6613164          DOI： 10.1073/pnas.1909217116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN： 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


× No keyword cloud information.
  15 in total

1.  Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs.

Authors:  Jennifer Reineke Pohlhaus; Hong Jiang; Robin M Wagner; Walter T Schaffer; Vivian W Pinn
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  National Institutes of Health addresses the science of diversity.

Authors:  Hannah A Valantine; Francis S Collins
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants.

Authors:  J M Doyle; K Quinn; Y A Bodenstein; C O Wu; N Danthi; M S Lauer
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2015-06-02       Impact factor: 15.992

4.  Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

Authors:  Donna K Ginther; Walter T Schaffer; Joshua Schnell; Beth Masimore; Faye Liu; Laurel L Haak; Raynard Kington
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Research groups: How big should they be?

Authors:  Isabelle Cook; Sam Grange; Adam Eyre-Walker
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  Maximizing the return on taxpayers' investments in fundamental biomedical research.

Authors:  Jon R Lorsch
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 4.138

7.  Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research.

Authors:  Wayne P Wahls
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding.

Authors:  Jean-Michel Fortin; David J Currie
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  The Matthew effect in empirical data.

Authors:  Matjaž Perc
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 4.118

10.  Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities.

Authors:  Dennis L Murray; Douglas Morris; Claude Lavoie; Peter R Leavitt; Hugh MacIsaac; Michael E J Masson; Marc-Andre Villard
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240
View more
  4 in total

1.  Gene-Targeted Therapies in Pediatric Neurology: Challenges and Opportunities in Diagnosis and Delivery.

Authors:  Renée A Shellhaas; Gabrielle deVeber; Joshua L Bonkowsky
Journal:  Pediatr Neurol       Date:  2021-09-25       Impact factor: 4.210

2.  NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology.

Authors:  Karim ReFaey; William D Freeman; Shashwat Tripathi; Hugo Guerrero-Cazares; Tiffany A Eatz; James F Meschia; Rickey E Carter; Leonard Petrucelli; Fredric B Meyer; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 4.506

3.  An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes.

Authors:  Richard K Nakamura; Lee S Mann; Mark D Lindner; Jeremy Braithwaite; Mei-Ching Chen; Adrian Vancea; Noni Byrnes; Valerie Durrant; Bruce Reed
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  NIH funding trends to US medical schools from 2009 to 2018.

Authors:  Paige Noble; Patrick Ten Eyck; Robert Roskoski; J Brooks Jackson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.