SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Research on research funding: an imperative for science and society
8 references·1 citing·41 second hop
Research on research funding: an imperative for science and society (2020)Research on research funding: an imperati…Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports (2020)Gender and other potential bi…Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency (2019)Are gender gaps due to evalua…What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (2018)What do we know about grant p…What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (2017)What do we know about grant p…Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review (2017)Reviewer bias in single- vers…Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices (2012)Conservatism and risk-taking …Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals (2011)Panel discussion does not imp…Peer Review at NIH (2006)Peer Review at NIHDevelopment of the Brief Open Research Survey (BORS) to measure awareness and uptake of Open Research practices (2022)Development of the Brief Open…Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Evaluation of research proposals for grant funding using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets (2015)‘Your comments are meaner than your score’: score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review (2016)Progress and its problems towards a theory of scientific growth (1977)Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge (1999)Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding (2014)Governing Science (2016)Co-existing Notions of Research Quality: A Framework to Study Context-specific Understandings of Good Research (2019)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards (2011)Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011)Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review (2020)The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants (2020)What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis (2022)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. (1968)The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review (2016)Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions (2019)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Quantifying hierarchy and dynamics in US faculty hiring and retention (2022)Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians (2000)Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. (2002)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)The Science and Value of Diversity: Closing the Gaps in Our Understanding of Inclusion and Diversity (2019)In the wake of COVID-19, academia needs new solutions to ensure gender equity (2020)Intersectional inequalities in science (2022)Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007)Current status and solutions for gender equity in anaesthesia research (2021)Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade (2021)Gender differences in peer review of innovation (2022)Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey (2009)The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions (2011)Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science (2015)Practical routes to preregistration: a guide to enhanced transparency and rigour in neuropsychological research (2025)The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation? (2007)Peer review and secrecy in the “Information Age” (2008)Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly (2010)Mavericks and lotteries (2018)Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review605 cited
  • 2019Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency570 cited
  • 2012Conservatism and risk-taking in peer review: Emerging ERC practices185 cited
  • 2018What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?102 cited
  • 2011Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals87 cited
  • 2017What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?68 cited
  • 2020Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports52 cited
  • 2006Peer Review at NIH17 cited

Cited by

  • 2022Development of the Brief Open Research Survey (BORS) to measure awareness and uptake of Open Research practices9 cited

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