SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives
8 references·14 citing·49 second hop
Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives (2010)Surveys of current status in biomedical s…Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications (2007)Peer review for improving the…Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Editorial peer review for imp…Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey (2006)Why do peer reviewers decline…Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas (2006)Requisitos uniformes para man…Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication updated October 2004. (2005)Uniform requirements for manu…Making Reviewers Visible (2002)Making Reviewers VisiblePeer Review in Health Sciences (1999)Peer Review in Health SciencesEditorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication (1990)Editorial Peer Review in Biom…Individual versus general structured feedback to improve agreement in grant peer review: a randomized controlled trial (2021)Individual versus general str…Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice (2020)Decision-making approaches us…The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey (2019)The Participation and Motivat…Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes (2019)Measuring bias, burden and co…European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective (2019)European Research Council: ex…Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study (2018)Randomly auditing research la…Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency (2018)Peer review of health researc…Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study (2018)Evaluation of stakeholder vie…Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives (2017)Addressing Reproducibility: P…Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study (2015)Using simplified peer review …Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers (2015)Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number…Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency (2014)Grant Application Review: The…Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol) (2013)Systematic review of the effe…Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings (2012)Aggregating post-publication …Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Gender Effects in the Peer Reviews of Grant Proposals: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Comparing Traditional and Multilevel Approaches (2009)Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender (2014)Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities (2016)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)The elephant in the living room: or extending the conversation about the politics of evidence (2009)Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)Journal Peer Review (1985)The Continued Use of Retracted, Invalid Scientific Literature (1990)A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review in Medicine (1992)Is There Gender Bias in JAMA's Peer Review Process? (1994)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2006)Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study (2019)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Bias in peer review (2012)Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers? (2017)Should we fund research randomly? An epistemological criticism of the lottery model as an alternative to peer review for the funding of science (2019)Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review (2021)Does Masking Author Identity Improve Peer Review Quality? (1998)Effect on the Quality of Peer Review of Blinding Reviewers and Asking Them to Sign Their Reports (1998)Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? (2002)Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals (2008)We Have to Break Up (2009)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable (1994)Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial (2004)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Gender bias in scholarly peer review (2017)Author-Reviewer Homophily in Peer Review (2018)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018 (2021)The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding (2021)Towards theorizing peer review (2022)Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007)Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases (2011)Content Validity—Establishing and Reporting the Evidence in Newly Developed Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Instruments for Medical Product Evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report: Part 1—Eliciting Concepts for a New PRO Instrument (2011)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)On effect size. (2012)SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials (2013)Applying the concept of culture to reduce health disparities through health behavior research (2012)Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles (2013)Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability (2013)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Requisitos uniformes para manuscritos submetidos a periódicos biomédicos: escrevendo e editando para publicações biomédicas416 cited
  • 2007Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies312 cited
  • 1999Peer Review in Health Sciences268 cited
  • 2006Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey195 cited
  • 2002Making Reviewers Visible167 cited
  • 2005Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication updated October 2004.105 cited
  • 2007Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications99 cited
  • 1990Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication81 cited

Cited by

  • 2018Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency42 cited
  • 2015Menage a Quoi? Optimal Number of Peer Reviewers41 cited
  • 2019Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes35 cited
  • 2015Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study32 cited
  • 2014Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency30 cited
  • 2019European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective22 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

  • 2019The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey21 cited
  • 2012Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings20 cited
  • 2013Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol)18 cited
  • 2018Randomly auditing research labs could be an affordable way to improve research quality: A simulation study18 cited
  • 2018Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study14 cited
  • 2020Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice12 cited
  • 2017Addressing Reproducibility: Peer Review, Impact Factors, Checklists, Guidelines, and Reproducibility Initiatives11 cited
  • 2021Individual versus general structured feedback to improve agreement in grant peer review: a randomized controlled trial9 cited