Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications

16 references·1 citing·38 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1997Nepotism and sexism in peer-review1,346 cited
1981Chance and Consensus in Peer Review623 cited
1991The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation496 cited
1993Making science: between nature and society359 cited
1985Funding Science: The Real Defects of Peer Review and An Alternative To It140 cited
1996Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?93 cited
1994Inappropriate and Appropriate Selection of 'Peers' in Grant Review51 cited
1994Grants Peer Review in Theory and Practice51 cited
1997How reliable is peer review? An examination of operating grant proposals simultaneously submitted to two similar peer review systems48 cited
1990The evaluation of scientific research47 cited
1997No evidence of sexism in peer review46 cited
1988Research Policy: Problems with peer review and alternatives40 cited
1991The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science Foundation39 cited
1990Peer review at the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft38 cited
1989First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on Their Concerns About Proposal Review

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

37 cited

1995Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer review: influence of internal and external reviewers and committees.25 cited

Cited by

2011Peer Review of Grant Applications: A Simple Method to Identify Proposals with Discordant Reviews8 cited