Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system (original) (raw)
Peer review of grant applications in biology and medicine. Reliability, fairness, and validity
Martin Reinhart
Scientometrics, 2009
View PDFchevron_right
How many reviewers are required to obtain reliable evaluations of NIH R01 grant proposals?
William T L Cox
2019
View PDFchevron_right
What ails the NIH peer review study sections and how to fix the review process of the grant applications
The Journal of Cardiovascular Aging
The Journal of Cardiovascular Aging, 2023
View PDFchevron_right
Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?
Amarette Filut
Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2016
View PDFchevron_right
Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives
Trish Groves
BMC Medicine, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications
Mitchell Nathan
View PDFchevron_right
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
Susan Guthrie
F1000Research, 2017
View PDFchevron_right
Measuring interdisciplinarity of research grant applications An indicator developed to model this selection criterion in the ERC's peer-review process
Marianne Hörlesberger
Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe - HAL - memSIC, 2013
View PDFchevron_right
The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding
Sandra Bendiscioli
EMBO reports, 2019
View PDFchevron_right
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? An updated review of the literature and six case studies
Susan Guthrie
2018
View PDFchevron_right
A Meta-evaluation of Scientific Research Proposals: Different Ways of Comparing Rejected to Awarded Applications
peter van den besselaar
Journal of Informetrics, 2009
View PDFchevron_right
Fate of the Peer Review Process at the ESA: Long-Term Outcome of Submitted Studies Over a 5-Year Period. Discussion. Author's reply
Hiram Polk
Annals of Surgery, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
Peer review in a gerontological research grant program. An exploration
Gerard Van der Zanden
View PDFchevron_right
Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices
Christophe Perrey
PLoS ONE, 2012
View PDFchevron_right
Analysis of Three Factors Possibly Influencing the Outcome of a Science Review Process
John F Araújo
Accountability in Research, 2014
View PDFchevron_right
Searching for an efficient institutional review board review model: Interrelationship of trainee-investigators, funding, and initial approval
Leo Twiggs
Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 2005
View PDFchevron_right
Mining the archives: Analyses of CIHR research grant adjudications
Neda Faregh
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, 2002
View PDFchevron_right
Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view
Kevin Boyack
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2011
View PDFchevron_right
How Do I Review Thee? Let Me Count the Ways: A Comparison of Research Grant Proposal Review Criteria Across US Federal Funding Agencies
Holly Falk-Krzesinski
The journal of research administration, 2015
View PDFchevron_right
Funding Medical Research Projects: Taking into Account Referees' Severity and Consistency through Many-Faceted Rasch Modeling of Projects' Scores
Laura Perucca
Journal of applied measurement, 2015
View PDFchevron_right
Evaluation of research proposals by peer review panels: broader panels for broader assessments?
Wendy Reijmerink
Science & public policy, 2023
View PDFchevron_right
Demystifying the NIH Grant Application Process
Karina Berg
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2007
View PDFchevron_right
Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications
Nancy Mayo
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
View PDFchevron_right
Enhancing review criteria for dissemination and implementation science grants
clare viglione
Implementation Science Communications
View PDFchevron_right
Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions
Hans-Dieter Daniel
Scientometrics, 2005
View PDFchevron_right
Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review
Mirjam Aeschbach
Palgrave Communications, 2020
View PDFchevron_right
Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments
Charles Deutsch
PLOS ONE
View PDFchevron_right
How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems
Corinne Hodgson
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 1997
View PDFchevron_right
Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health
Elcio Magalhães
PLOS ONE, 2020
View PDFchevron_right
The Delphi process: a solution for reviewing novel grant applications
Monica Robotin
International Journal of General Medicine, 2010
View PDFchevron_right
Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication
Hyun Jung Yi
Science Editing, 2018
View PDFchevron_right
Project selection in NIH: A natural experiment from ARRA
Hyunwoo Park, Jay Lee, Byung-Cheol Kim
Research Policy, 2015
View PDFchevron_right
Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review: an observational study
Megan Campbell
BMC Health Services Research, 2015
View PDFchevron_right
Virtual and Peer Reviews of Grant Applications at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Nghia Vo
View PDFchevron_right