Suppr超能文献

相似文献

1
Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105(32):11076-80. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804538105. Epub 2008 Jul 28.
3
Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 20;115(12):2952-2957. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1714379115. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
4
Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?
Science. 2015 Apr 24;348(6233):434-8. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa0185. Epub 2015 Apr 23.
7
Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.
Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Mar;3(3):257-264. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0517-y. Epub 2019 Jan 28.
9
Growing pains for NIH grant review.
Cell. 2006 Jun 2;125(5):823-5. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.05.020.
10
Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Mar;163(3):872-879.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.01.088. Epub 2021 Feb 3.

引用本文的文献

2
An experimental study of simulated grant peer review: Gender differences and psychometric characteristics of proposal scores.
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 17;19(12):e0315567. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315567. eCollection 2024.
3
A new approach to grant review assessments: score, then rank.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Jul 24;8(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00131-7.
4
Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A roadmap to equity in academia.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2023 Apr;117(4):659-671. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.02.001. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
5
Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A road map to equity in academia.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2023 May;31(5):1240-1254. doi: 10.1002/oby.23704. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
6
Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE.
PLoS One. 2022 Dec 12;17(12):e0273994. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273994. eCollection 2022.
7
Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance.
PLoS One. 2022 Aug 26;17(8):e0273813. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273813. eCollection 2022.
8
An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.
Scientometrics. 2017 Jan;110(1):521-528. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2110-3. Epub 2016 Sep 3.
10
How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 8;12(9):e0183967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183967. eCollection 2017.

本文引用的文献

1
The theoretical status of latent variables.
Psychol Rev. 2003 Apr;110(2):203-219. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203.
2
Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences.
Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:605-34. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135239.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验