Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications
Elizabeth L. Pier et al.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2018)
How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?
Krist Vaesen et al.
PLOS ONE (2017)
Funding by Lottery: Political Problems and Research Opportunities
Adrian G. Barnett
MBIO (2016)
The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers
Adrian G. Barnett et al.
BMJ OPEN (2015)
Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
Bruce Alberts et al.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2014)
The predictive power of NSF reviewers and panels
Samuel M. Scheiner et al.
FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT (2013)
On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers
Danielle L. Herbert et al.
BMJ OPEN (2013)
Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals
Mikael Fogelholm et al.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY (2012)
Fund people not projects
John P. A. Ioannidis
NATURE (2011)
Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel
Nicholas Graves et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2011)
Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research The granting system turns young scientists into bureaucrats and then betrays them
Peter A. Lawrence
PLOS BIOLOGY (2009)
The Theory of Assortative Matching Based on Costly Signals
Heidrun C. Hoppe et al.
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES (2009)
A time allocation study of university faculty
Albert N. Link et al.
ECONOMICS OF EDUCATION REVIEW (2008)
American idol and NIH grant review
Michele Pagano
CELL (2006)
The optimal allocation of prizes in contests
B Moldovanu et al.
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW (2001)
Share Paper
