SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Unsuccessful research funding applications: a scoping review of causes and impacts on Australian researchers and research projects
16 references·0 citing·38 second hop
Unsuccessful research funding applications: a scoping review of causes and impacts on Australian researchers and research projects (2025)Unsuccessful research funding application…Journal of Research Administration (2023)Journal of Research Administr…Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators (2019)Comparison of National Instit…The Matthew effect in science funding (2018)The Matthew effect in science…PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)PRISMA Extension for Scoping …Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation (2018)Making gender diversity work …A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews (2016)A scoping review on the condu…The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews (2015)The Joanna Briggs Institute r…A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency (2014)A scoping review of scoping r…Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors (2011)Sex differences in research f…Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university (2009)Research collaboration and re…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. (2008)Improving the peer-review pro…Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis (2007)Gender differences in grant p…Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)Using thematic analysis in ps…Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Scoping studies: towards a me…Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically (2002)Appraising the Evidence: Revi…Qualitative evaluation and research methods (1990)Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (1994)Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (1998)Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place (2015)Thematic Analysis (2017)Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis (2019)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Scoping studies: advancing the methodology (2010)The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines (2019)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (1974)Nepotism and sexism in peer-review (1997)A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis (2013)Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands (2015)THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE:: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (2017)Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)Defining and Designing Mixed Research Synthesis Studies. (2006)Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings (2007)Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review (2016)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols (2022)Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews (2022)The Matthew Effect in Science (1968)Chance and Consensus in Peer Review (1981)Resistance to Reform: Status Quo Bias in the Presence of Individual-Specific Uncertainty: Comment (2004)Systemic and Reflexive: Foundations of Cumulative Dis/Advantage and Life-Course Processes (2018)Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists (2019)Global citation inequality is on the rise (2021)Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: a systematic review of qualitative evidence (2016)Perinatal health outcomes and care among asylum seekers and refugees: a systematic review of systematic reviews (2018)The benefits of and barriers to using a social robot PARO in care settings: a scoping review (2019)Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2006Using thematic analysis in psychology193,725 cited
  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2018PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation43,318 cited
  • 2005Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework36,603 cited
  • 2014A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency3,074 cited
  • 2016A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews2,242 cited
  • 2002Appraising the Evidence: Reviewing Disparate Data Systematically1,216 cited
  • 2015The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews1,135 cited
  • 2018The Matthew effect in science funding636 cited
  • 2007Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis336 cited
  • 2023Journal of Research Administration326 cited
  • 2008Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.299 cited
  • 2019Comparison of National Institutes of Health Grant Amounts to First-Time Male and Female Principal Investigators284 cited
  • 2009Research collaboration and research output: A longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university268 cited

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

  • 2018Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation260 cited
  • 2011Sex differences in research funding, productivity and impact: an analysis of Québec university professors199 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.