Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review
出版年份 2023 全文链接
标题
Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review
作者
关键词
-
出版物
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 250-262
出版商
SAGE Publications
发表日期
2023-08-01
DOI
10.1177/15562646231191424
参考文献
相关参考文献
注意:仅列出部分参考文献,下载原文获取全部文献信息。- The effect of the scale of grant scoring on ranking accuracy
- (2023) Peter M. Visscher et al. F1000Research
- What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports
- (2022) Darko Hren et al. Journal of Informetrics
- Double-Blinded Manuscript Review
- (2021) Ariel Santos et al. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
- (2021) Matthew J Page et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes
- (2021) Richard K Nakamura et al. eLife
- Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review
- (2019) Samir Haffar et al. MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS
- Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective
- (2019) Stephanie Meirmans et al. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
- Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency
- (2018) Jonathan Shepherd et al. PLoS One
- Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review
- (2017) Andrew Tomkins et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?
- (2017) Krist Vaesen et al. PLoS One
- Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- (2016) Rachel Bruce et al. BMC Medicine
- Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige
- (2016) Kanu Okike et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Peer Review Evaluation Process of Marie Curie Actions under EU’s Seventh Framework Programme for Research
- (2015) David G. Pina et al. PLoS One
- Attitudes Toward Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy Within a Small Biomedical Specialty
- (2014) Reshma Jagsi et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS
- Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws
- (2014) B. Alberts et al. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- Bias in peer review
- (2012) Carole J. Lee et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
- Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals
- (2008) Judith Gedney Baggs et al. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
- Sample Size and Precision in NIH Peer Review
- (2008) David Kaplan et al. PLoS One
- Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors
- (2007) A BUDDEN et al. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExploreCreate your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create Now