Warning: Undefined array key "mm" in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /www/wwwroot/www.ai-bt.com/si.php on line 10 Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?

Literature DB >> 9690424

Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?

S Wessely¹.

Abstract

Mesh：

Year: 1998 PMID： 9690424 DOI： 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1

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

Keyword Cloud
Cited

× No keyword cloud information.

23 in total

1. 'Peer review' culture.

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

2. Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research.

Authors: Shawn J Rangel; Bradley Efron; R Lawrence Moss
Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 12.969

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

Authors: Ferric C Fang; Arturo Casadevall
Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 3.441

4. 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

Authors: Santo Fortunato; Carl T Bergstrom; Katy Börner; James A Evans; Dirk Helbing; Staša Milojević; Alexander M Petersen; Filippo Radicchi; Roberta Sinatra; Brian Uzzi; Alessandro Vespignani; Ludo Waltman; Dashun Wang; Albert-László Barabási
Journal: Science Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 47.728

6. 'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.

Authors: Elizabeth L Pier; Joshua Raclaw; Anna Kaatz; Markus Brauer; Molly Carnes; Mitchell J Nathan; Cecilia E Ford
Journal: Res Eval Date: 2017-02-14

Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?

1. 'Peer review' culture.

2. Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research.

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

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

Review 5. Science of science.

6. 'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.

7. The calculus of committee composition.

8. Administrative Discretion in Scientific Funding: Evidence from a Prestigious Postdoctoral Training Program.

9. Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.

10. Reviewers' ratings and bibliometric indicators: hand in hand when assessing over research proposals?