Ends with Text EnglishEspañolDeutschFrançaisItalianoالعربية中文简体PolskiPortuguêsNederlandsNorskΕλληνικήРусскийTürkçeאנגלית 9 RegisterLog in Sign up with one click: Facebook Twitter ...
Peer review starts with experts separately analyzing and scoring a number of proposals. Groups of experts then convene to discuss the proposals and collectively decide which ones merit funding. To study this process, the researchers assembled experienced NIH peer reviewers and had them review real pro...
) Well, for the last two months I’ve been in stuck the hellhole that is known as applying for the NIH K99/R00 grant. Now that my grant was just submitted and I can forget all about it, clearly the first thing I decided to do was to spend a few hours writing...
In combination, the active management of these three phases of the grant life cycle—upstream of the application process, at the time submissions are being prepared, and after review—may help NIH move closer to its goal of a diverse workforce. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data...
Analysis of the extensive variability among reviewers' criterion weights failed to identify major sources of this variation in scoring grant applications.Scheirer, M. ANational Institutes of HealthBraveman, N. SGarringer, T
The NIH is scoring more heavily based on the school and citations, even if they claim the criteria are primarily significance, innovation, and approach of the grant application. Clearly the investigator, being their citations, and the research environment, being the school name, are too much ...
we found that the ocular GVHD patients were more evenly divided into different groups of severity when assessed by the Japanese dry eye score and DEWS 2007 score than by the NIH eye score. In the NIH eye scoring system, the severity of ocular GVHD is assessed by the frequency of eye drop...