Research
Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel
BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d4797 (Published 27 September 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;343:d4797
Data supplement
Web Extra
Extra material supplied by the author
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Data Supplement - Project grant funding process of National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
- Data Supplement - Explanation of non-parametric bootstrap procedure
Web Extra
Extra material supplied by the author
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Data Supplement - Project grant funding process of National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
- Data Supplement - Explanation of non-parametric bootstrap procedure
Web Extra
Extra material supplied by the author
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Data Supplement - Project grant funding process of National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
- Data Supplement - Explanation of non-parametric bootstrap procedure
Related articles
- PAPERS Published: 02 March 2004; BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE
- Paper Published: 18 March 2004; BMJ 328 doi:10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE
See more
- Monitoring drug interventions in people with bipolar disorderBMJ February 07, 2023, 380 e070678; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070678
- How can I deal with guilt over being off work sick?BMJ February 07, 2023, 380 p109; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p109
- Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data (TRIPOD-Cluster): explanation and elaborationBMJ February 07, 2023, 380 e071058; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071058
- Transparent reporting of multivariable prediction models developed or validated using clustered data: TRIPOD-Cluster checklistBMJ February 07, 2023, 380 e071018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071018
- Medicalisation of female genital mutilation is a dangerous developmentBMJ February 07, 2023, 380 p302; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p302
Cited by...
- Face-to-face panel meetings versus remote evaluation of fellowship applications: simulation study at the Swiss National Science Foundation
- How to best evaluate applications for junior fellowships? Remote evaluation and face-to-face panel meetings compared
- Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada
- Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications
- Research Funding: the Case for a Modified Lottery
- Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
- Using simplified peer review processes to fund research: a prospective study
- Percentile Ranking and Citation Impact of a Large Cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-Funded Cardiovascular R01 Grants
- On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers