Literature DB >> 8909385

Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?

D F Horrobin1.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8909385     DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)08029-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 in total

1.  'Peer review' culture.

Authors:  M Atkinson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  [Peer review in scientific journals].

Authors:  J Gérvas; M Pérez Fernández
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 1.137

3.  An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.

Authors:  Johan Bollen; David Crandall; Damion Junk; Ying Ding; Katy Börner
Journal:  Scientometrics       Date:  2016-09-03       Impact factor: 3.238

4.  CDC at 50: lessons to be learned.

Authors:  W W Darrow
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Research grants: Conform and be funded.

Authors:  Joshua M Nicholson; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.

Authors:  Hui Fang
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2014-08-22       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Is peer review useful in assessing research proposals in Indigenous health? A case study.

Authors:  Jackie Street; Fran Baum; Ian P S Anderson
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2009-02-13

Review 8.  Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.

Authors:  V Demicheli; C Di Pietrantonj
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

9.  Peer review and innovation.

Authors:  Raymond E Spier
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.777

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.