Restoring good manners.
作者信息
Morgan M J
出版信息
Nature. 1995 Dec 7;378(6557):533. doi: 10.1038/378533b0.
DOI:10.1038/378533b0
PMID:8524375
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Restoring good manners.
Nature. 1995 Dec 7;378(6557):533. doi: 10.1038/378533b0.
2
Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?科研基金申请的同行评审：我们了解什么？
Lancet. 1998 Jul 25;352(9124):301-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11129-1.
3
Peer review. Australia's proposed U.K.-style merit ranking stirs debate.
Science. 2006 Apr 14;312(5771):176. doi: 10.1126/science.312.5771.176b.
4
Institutes experiment with a variety of different appeal processes.各机构试用了多种不同的申诉程序。
Nat Med. 2012 Sep;18(9):1313. doi: 10.1038/nm0912-1313.
5
Italy widens peer review of health research.
Nature. 1995 Mar 23;374(6520):299. doi: 10.1038/374299a0.
6
The Medical Research Council and the support of biomedical research in the United Kingdom.医学研究理事会与英国生物医学研究的支持
Proc R Soc Med. 1973 Jan;66(1 Pt 1):6. doi: 10.1177/00359157730661P108.
7
U.S. science funding. DOE cures pork project with peer review.美国科学资金。能源部通过同行评审的“政治分肥”项目。
Science. 2007 May 4;316(5825):674. doi: 10.1126/science.316.5825.674.
8
Research funding. Canadian institutes get windfall without the bother of competition.研究资金。加拿大各机构不费竞争之苦便获得了意外之财。
Science. 2007 Mar 30;315(5820):1779-80. doi: 10.1126/science.315.5820.1779a.
9
Why China needs an NIH.为什么中国需要一个国立卫生研究院。
Nature. 2004 Apr 15;428(6984):679. doi: 10.1038/428679b.
10
Dozens of scientists quit Texas cancer agency review panels, claiming that business interests trumped merit.数十名科学家退出了得克萨斯州癌症机构的评审小组，称商业利益凌驾于价值之上。
BMJ. 2012 Oct 29;345:e7267. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7267.
Zotero 插件