Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Peer review of research grant proposals”
Utwórz poprawne odniesienie w stylach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard i wielu innych
Spis treści
Zobacz listy aktualnych artykułów, książek, rozpraw, streszczeń i innych źródeł naukowych na temat „Peer review of research grant proposals”.
Przycisk „Dodaj do bibliografii” jest dostępny obok każdej pracy w bibliografii. Użyj go – a my automatycznie utworzymy odniesienie bibliograficzne do wybranej pracy w stylu cytowania, którego potrzebujesz: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver itp.
Możesz również pobrać pełny tekst publikacji naukowej w formacie „.pdf” i przeczytać adnotację do pracy online, jeśli odpowiednie parametry są dostępne w metadanych.
Artykuły w czasopismach na temat "Peer review of research grant proposals"
Lindquist, RD, MF Tracy i D. Treat-Jacobson. "Peer review of nursing research proposals". American Journal of Critical Care 4, nr 1 (1.01.1995): 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc1995.4.1.59.
Pełny tekst źródłaMarchant, Mary A. "The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals". Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33, nr 3 (grudzień 2001): 605–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800021040.
Pełny tekst źródłaConix, Stijn, Andreas De Block i Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices". F1000Research 10 (8.11.2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaConix, Stijn, Andreas De Block i Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices". F1000Research 10 (24.12.2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2.
Pełny tekst źródłaMutz, Rüdiger, Lutz Bornmann i Hans-Dieter Daniel. "Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?" Zeitschrift für Psychologie 220, nr 2 (styczeń 2012): 121–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000103.
Pełny tekst źródłaBotham, Crystal M., Shay Brawn, Latishya Steele, Cisco B. Barrón, Sofie R. Kleppner i Daniel Herschlag. "Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy". PLOS ONE 15, nr 12 (28.12.2020): e0243973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243973.
Pełny tekst źródłaGallo, Stephen A., i Karen B. Schmaling. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance". PLOS ONE 17, nr 8 (26.08.2022): e0273813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273813.
Pełny tekst źródłaFrampton, Geoff, Jonathan Shepherd, Karen Pickett i Jeremy Wyatt. "PP021 Peer Review Innovations For Grant Applications: Efficient And Effective?" International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 33, S1 (2017): 78–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462317002124.
Pełny tekst źródłaGuthrie, Susan, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo i Salil Gunashekar. "Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes". F1000Research 8 (12.06.2019): 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1.
Pełny tekst źródłaFogelholm, Mikael, Saara Leppinen, Anssi Auvinen, Jani Raitanen, Anu Nuutinen i Kalervo Väänänen. "Panel discussion does not improve reliability of peer review for medical research grant proposals". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 65, nr 1 (styczeń 2012): 47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.001.
Pełny tekst źródłaRozprawy doktorskie na temat "Peer review of research grant proposals"
Jayasinghe, Upali W., University of Western Sydney, of Arts Education and Social Sciences College i Self-Concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation Research Centre. "Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by the Australian Research Council". THESIS_CAESS_SELF_Jayasinghe_U.xml, 2003. http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/572.
Pełny tekst źródłaDoctor of Philosophy (PhD)
Jayasinghe, Upali W. "Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by the Australian Research Council /". View thesis, 2003. http://library.uws.edu.au/adt-NUWS/public/adt-NUWS20051102.114303/index.html.
Pełny tekst źródła"A thesis submitted to the University of Western Sydney in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy" Bibliography : leaves 350-371.
Jayasinghe, Upali W. "Peer review in the assessment and funding of research by the Australian Research Council". Thesis, View thesis, 2003. http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/572.
Pełny tekst źródłaEigelaar, Ilse. "The use of peer review as an evaluative tool in science". Thesis, Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2001. http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/52587.
Pełny tekst źródłaENGLISH ABSTRACT: Peer review as an institutional mechanism for certifying knowledge and allocating resources dates back as far as 1665. Today it can with confidence be stated that it is one of the most prominent evaluative tools used in science to determine the quality of research across all scientific fields. Given the transformation within the processes of knowledge production, peer review as an institutionalised method of the evaluation of scientific research has not been unaffected. Peer reviewers have to act within a system of relevant science and find themselves responsible to the scientific community as well as to public decision-makers, who in turn are responsible to the public. This dual responsibility of reviewers led to the development of criteria to be used in the evaluation process to enable them to measure scientific excellence as well as the societal relevance of science. In this thesis peer review in science is examined within the context of these transformations. In looking at the conceptual and methodological issues raised by peer review, definitions of peer review, its history and contexts of application are examined followed by a critique on peer review. Peer review in practice is also explored and the evaluation processes of four respective funding agencies are analysed with regards to three aspects intrinsic to the peer review process: the method by which reviewers are selected, the review criteria by which proposals are rated, and the number of review stages within each review process. The thesis concludes with recommendations for possible improvements to the peer review process and recommended alternatives to peer review as an evaluative tool.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Portuurgroep-evaluering as 'n geïnsitutsionaliseerde meganisme in die sertifisering van kennis en die toewys van hulpbronne dateer terug so ver as 1665. Huidiglik kan dit as een van die mees prominente metingsinstrumente van die kwaliteit van navorsing in alle wetenskaplike velde beskou word. Die transformasies wat plaasgevind het binne die prosesse waar kennis gegenereer word, het ook nie portuurgroep-evaluaring as 'n geïnstitusionaliseerde metode van evaluering ongeraak gelaat nie. Portuurgroep-evalueerders bevind hulself binne 'n sisteem van relevante wetenskap. Binne hierdie sisteem het hulle 'n verantwoordelikheid teenoor die wetenskaplike gemeenskap sowel as die publiekebesluitnemers wat op hul beurt weer verantwoordelik is teenoor die publiek. Hierdie dubbele verantwoordelikheid het tot gevolg die saamstel van kriteria waarvolgens evalueerders wetenskaplike uitmuntendheid sowel as relevansie tot die breër samelewing kan meet. Hierdie tesis ondersoek portuurgroep-evaluering teen die agtergrond van hierdie transformasies. Die konseptueie en metodologiese aspekte van portuurgroepevaluering word ondersoek deur eerstens te kyk na definisies van portuurgroepevaluering, die geskiedenis daarvan en kontekste waarbinne dit gebruik word. Tweedens word gekyk na kritiek gelewer op portuurgroep-evaluering. Portuurgroep evaluering binne die praktyk word ook ondersoek waar vier onderskeie befondsingsagentskappe se evaluerings prosesse geanaliseer word. Hierdie analise word gedoen in terme van drie essensiële aspekte binne portuurgroep- evaluering. Hierdie drie aspekte is as volg: 1) die wyse waarop evalueerders geselekteer word, 2) die evalueringskriteria waarvolgens navorsingsvoorstelle gemeet word en 3) die hoeveelheid evalueringsfases binne die protuurgroep-evaluerings proses. Laastens word aanbevelings ter verbetering van die portuurgroep-evaluerings proses as ook voorstelle tot moontlike alternatiewe tot portuurgroep-evaluering as 'n evaluerings instrument gebied.
Mow, Karen Estelle, i n/a. "Research Grant Funding and Peer Review in Australian Research Councils". University of Canberra. Administrative Studies, 2009. http://erl.canberra.edu.au./public/adt-AUC20091214.152554.
Pełny tekst źródłaAvin, Shahar. "Breaking the grant cycle : on the rational allocation of public resources to scientific research projects". Thesis, University of Cambridge, 2015. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/247434.
Pełny tekst źródłaRankins, Falcon. "An Investigation of How Black STEM Faculty at Historically Black Colleges and Universities Approach the National Science Foundation Merit Review Process". VCU Scholars Compass, 2017. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/5149.
Pełny tekst źródłaKsiążki na temat "Peer review of research grant proposals"
National Cancer Institute (U.S.), red. Share your expertise with us. [Bethesda Md.]: National Cancer Insitute, 2001.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaLangfeldt, Liv. Fagfellevurdering som forskningspolitisk virkemiddel: En studie av fordelingen av frie midler i Norges forskningsråd. Oslo: NIFU, Norsk institutt for studier av forskning og utdanning, 1998.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaHill, Anne. Addressing common problems: Guidance for submitting European Commission fifth framework proposals. Birmingham: Outreach Press, 2001.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaRichard, Mandel. A half century of peer review, 1946-1996. Bethesda, MD (2760 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria 22314): Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health, 1996.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaCenter, Horace Mann Learning, red. Reviewing applications for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements: A workbook for application reviewers. [Washington, D.C.?]: Horace Mann Learning Center, 1988.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaCenter, Horace Mann Learning. Reviewing applications for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements: A workbook for application reviewers. Washington, D.C.?]: Horace Mann Learning Center, U.S. Department of Education, 1991.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaS, Frankel Mark, i Cave Jane, red. Evaluating science and scientists: An east-west dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1997.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaLearning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships: Information & application materials : deadline for submissions: April 2, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 1999.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaShestopal, A. V., i V. I. Konnov. Sot︠s︡ialʹno-politicheskai︠a︡ funkt︠s︡ii︠a︡ nat︠s︡ionalʹnykh nauchnykh fondov: Sbornik nauchnykh stateĭ. Moskva: Izdatelʹstvo "MGIMO-Universitet", 2016.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródła1956-, Evans Martyn, red. A decent proposal: Ethical review of clinical research. New York, N.Y: Wiley, 1996.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaCzęści książek na temat "Peer review of research grant proposals"
Langfeldt, Liv. "The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome". W Peer review in an Era of Evaluation, 297–326. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7_13.
Pełny tekst źródłaTinkle, Mindy B. "Submitting a Research Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health: Navigating the Application and Peer Review System". W Intervention Research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/9780826109583.0021.
Pełny tekst źródłaTinkle, Mindy B., i Ann Marie McCarthy. "Submitting a Research Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health: Navigating the Application and Peer Review System". W Intervention Research and Evidence-Based Quality Improvement. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/9780826155719.0024.
Pełny tekst źródłaGross, Alan G., i Joseph E. Harmon. "Evaluation Before Publication". W The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190465926.003.0010.
Pełny tekst źródłaGaur, Loveleen, i Anam Afaq. "Metamorphosis of CRM". W Advances in Computer and Electrical Engineering, 1–23. IGI Global, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2772-6.ch001.
Pełny tekst źródłaRaporty organizacyjne na temat "Peer review of research grant proposals"
Spaulding, Jesse, i Gleb Pitsevich. Thinklab: A platform for open review of research grant proposals [project]. ThinkLab, luty 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.15363/thinklab.18.
Pełny tekst źródłaSpaulding, Jesse, i Gleb Pitsevich. Thinklab: A platform for open review of research grant proposals [proposal]. ThinkLab, luty 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.15363/thinklab.a12.
Pełny tekst źródłaHeidler, Richard. Funding Research Data Infrastructures: Funding Criteria in Grant Peer Review. Fteval - Austrian Platform for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, marzec 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2020.467.
Pełny tekst źródła