The transparency of the peer-review system of grant applications

The transparency of the peer-review system of grant applications

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Ricardo Andrés Cartes-Velasquez
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Universidad de Concepción. 2018-01-01
Series:	Journal of Oral Research
Online Access:	http://www.joralres.com/index.php/JOralRes/article/view/joralres.2018.010/381

Similar Items

Grant application review: the case of transparency.
by: David Gurwitz, et al.
Published: (2014-12-01)

Is it time for open peer-review?
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2016-11-01)

Peer-review, like democracy, is not perfect but… is it a sacred cow?
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2015-04-01)

Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications.
by: Robyn Tamblyn, et al.
Published: (2023-01-01)

Ranking versus rating in peer review of research grant applications
by: Robyn Tamblyn, et al.
Published: (2023-01-01)

Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity and generalization
by: Marsh, H, et al.
Published: (2008)

Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
by: Hendy Abdoul, et al.
Published: (2012-01-01)

Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.
by: Marsh, H, et al.
Published: (2008)

Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers
by: Amreen Mughal, et al.
Published: (2021-07-01)

An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes
by: Richard K Nakamura, et al.
Published: (2021-10-01)

Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.
by: Bruno Giraudeau, et al.
Published: (2011-01-01)

Let peer review be transparent
Published: (2023-01-01)

Transparent peer review for all
Published: (2022-10-01)

Trialing transparent peer review
by: Andrew Cosgrove, et al.
Published: (2017-09-01)

Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.
by: Stephen A Gallo, et al.
Published: (2013-01-01)

Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training.
by: David N Sattler, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

Assessment of the transparency of the functioning of the Church Fund in Poland in terms of granting it
by: Łukasz Bernaciński
Published: (2021-01-01)

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
by: Karen B. Schmaling, et al.
Published: (2023-05-01)

Transparent peer review: the value is clear
Published: (2022-05-01)

Transparency in peer review – is this an emerging trend?
by: Harpreet Kour, et al.
Published: (2022-01-01)

Transparent peer review trial: the results
by: Andrew Cosgrove, et al.
Published: (2018-11-01)

Talk FK Grant application PDU Grant Made in UMP Grant and Matching Grant
by: Nabilah Filzah, Mohd Radzuan
Published: (2021)

NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
by: Ferric C Fang, et al.
Published: (2016-02-01)

Transparent Peer Review: A Look Inside the Peer Review Process
by: Sofia Garakyaraghi, et al.
Published: (2021-11-01)

An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH.
by: Michael R Martin, et al.
Published: (2010-11-01)

Acknowledgement to reviewers.
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2016-12-01)

Grant application
by: Sven Skjennebrg (ed.)
Published: (1992-10-01)

What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills.
by: Miriam L E Steiner Davis, et al.
Published: (2020-01-01)

Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
by: Marsh, H, et al.
Published: (2011)

Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
by: Marsh, H, et al.
Published: (2011)

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.
by: Jelte M Wicherts
Published: (2016-01-01)

Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis
by: Emily Ford
Published: (2019-10-01)

Exponential growth of dental schools in Chile: effects on academic, economic and workforce issues
by: Ricardo Andres Cartes-Velasquez
Published: (2013-12-01)

Academic career, two misconceptions
by: Ricardo Andrés Cartes-Velasquez
Published: (2018-02-01)

Alfabetismo en salud: bases conceptuales y evidencia en odontología
by: Ricardo Andrés Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2015-04-01)

A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: An Australian experiment
by: Jayasinghe, U, et al.
Published: (2006)

The effect of the scale of grant scoring on ranking accuracy [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
by: Peter M. Visscher, et al.
Published: (2023-02-01)

‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function
by: John Coveney, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)

Three years of quality assurance data assessing the performance of over 4000 grant peer review contributions to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grant Competition
by: Clare L. Ardern, et al.
Published: (2023-01-01)

Opening and Reusing Transparent Peer Reviews with Automatic Article Annotation
by: Afshin Sadeghi, et al.
Published: (2019-02-01)