Relevant bibliographies by topics / Peer review of research grant proposals

Contents

  1. Journal articles
  2. Dissertations / Theses
  3. Books
  4. Book chapters
  5. Conference papers
  6. Reports

Academic literature on the topic 'Peer review of research grant proposals'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 31 July 2024

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Peer review of research grant proposals.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Peer review of research grant proposals"

1

Lindquist, RD, MF Tracy, and D. Treat-Jacobson. "Peer review of nursing research proposals." American Journal of Critical Care 4, no. 1 (January 1, 1995): 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc1995.4.1.59.

Full text
Abstract:
The grant review process that operationalizes peer review for the critique, scoring, approval, and selection of research grants for funding may intimidate a novice reviewer. This article describes the peer review panel and process of grant review, specifies the role and responsibilities of the reviewer in the review session, and presents considerations for the evaluation of proposals and the preparation of a written critique. A sample critique is provided.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Marchant, Mary A. "The Keys to Preparing Successful Research Grant Proposals." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 33, no. 3 (December 2001): 605–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800021040.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of go
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Conix, Stijn, Andreas De Block, and Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices." F1000Research 10 (November 8, 2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.1.

Full text
Abstract:
A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Conix, Stijn, Andreas De Block, and Krist Vaesen. "Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices." F1000Research 10 (December 24, 2021): 1126. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73893.2.

Full text
Abstract:
A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Botham, Crystal M., Shay Brawn, Latishya Steele, Cisco B. Barrón, Sofie R. Kleppner, and Daniel Herschlag. "Biosciences Proposal Bootcamp: Structured peer and faculty feedback improves trainees’ proposals and grantsmanship self-efficacy." PLOS ONE 15, no. 12 (December 28, 2020): e0243973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243973.

Full text
Abstract:
Grant writing is an essential skill to develop for academic and other career success but providing individual feedback to large numbers of trainees is challenging. In 2014, we launched the Stanford Biosciences Grant Writing Academy to support graduate students and postdocs in writing research proposals. Its core program is a multi-week Proposal Bootcamp designed to increase the feedback writers receive as they develop and refine their proposals. The Proposal Bootcamp consisted of two-hour weekly meetings that included mini lectures and peer review. Bootcamp participants also attended faculty r
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Gallo, Stephen A., and Karen B. Schmaling. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance." PLOS ONE 17, no. 8 (August 26, 2022): e0273813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273813.

Full text
Abstract:
Peer review, commonly used in grant funding decisions, relies on scientists’ ability to evaluate research proposals’ quality. Such judgments are sometimes beyond reviewers’ discriminatory power and could lead to a reliance on subjective biases, including preferences for lower risk, incremental projects. However, peer reviewers’ risk tolerance has not been well studied. We conducted a cross-sectional experiment of peer reviewers’ evaluations of mock primary reviewers’ comments in which the level and sources of risks and weaknesses were manipulated. Here we show that proposal risks more strongly
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Mutz, Rüdiger, Lutz Bornmann, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. "Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?" Zeitschrift für Psychologie 220, no. 2 (January 2012): 121–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000103.

Full text
Abstract:
One of the most frequently voiced criticisms of the peer review process is gender bias. In this study we evaluated the grant peer review process (external reviewers’ ratings, and board of trustees’ final decision: approval or no approval for funding) at the Austrian Science Fund with respect to gender. The data consisted of 8,496 research proposals (census) across all disciplines from 1999 to 2009, which were rated on a scale from 1 to 100 (poor to excellent) by 18,357 external reviewers in 23,977 reviews. In line with the current state of research, we found that the final decision was not ass
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Frampton, Geoff, Jonathan Shepherd, Karen Pickett, and 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.

Full text
Abstract:
INTRODUCTION:Peer review of grant applications is employed routinely by health research funding bodies to determine which research proposals should be funded. Peer review faces a number of criticisms, however, especially that it is time consuming, financially expensive, and may not select the best proposals. Various modifications to peer review have been examined in research studies but these have not been systematically reviewed to guide Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funding agencies.METHODS:We developed a systematic map based on a logic model to summarize the characteristics of empirica
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Holland, Christy K. "How to write a peer-polished proposal in 15 weeks." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 155, no. 3_Supplement (March 1, 2024): A104—A105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/10.0026964.

Full text
Abstract:
Creating a meticulously crafted proposal requires a strategic approach and systematic planning. An overview of a semester-long graduate course on how to write successful NIH grant applications will be provided. Particular emphasis is given to developing proposals for the Ruth L. Kirschstein Predoctoral Individual National Research Service Award (https://researchtraining.nih.gov/programs/fellowships/F31) or to disease-based foundations. The writing process involves drafting components in several key phases. The initial four weeks focus on understanding the proposal requirements, identifying the
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Guthrie, Susan, Daniela Rodriguez Rincon, Gordon McInroy, Becky Ioppolo, and Salil Gunashekar. "Measuring bias, burden and conservatism in research funding processes." F1000Research 8 (June 12, 2019): 851. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19156.1.

Full text
Abstract:
Background: Grant funding allocation is a complex process that in most cases relies on peer review. A recent study identified a number of challenges associated with the use of peer review in the evaluation of grant proposals. Three important issues identified were bias, burden, and conservatism, and the work concluded that further experimentation and measurement is needed to assess the performance of funding processes. Methods: We have conducted a review of international practice in the evaluation and improvement of grant funding processes in relation to bias, burden and conservatism, based on
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Peer review of research grant proposals"

1

Jayasinghe, Upali W., University of Western Sydney, of Arts Education and Social Sciences College, and 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.

Full text
Abstract:
In higher education settings the peer review process is highly valued and used for evaluating the academic merits of grant proposals, journal submissions, academic promotions, monographs, text books, PhD thesis and a variety of other academic products. The purpose of this thesis was to evaluate the peer review process for awarding research grants used by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Large Grants Program and to propose strategies to address potential shortcomings of the system. This study also evaluated psychometric properties such as the reliabilities of various ratings that are part
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

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.

Full text
Abstract:
Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Western Sydney, 2003.<br>"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.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

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.

Full text
Abstract:
In higher education settings the peer review process is highly valued and used for evaluating the academic merits of grant proposals, journal submissions, academic promotions, monographs, text books, PhD thesis and a variety of other academic products. The purpose of this thesis was to evaluate the peer review process for awarding research grants used by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Large Grants Program and to propose strategies to address potential shortcomings of the system. This study also evaluated psychometric properties such as the reliabilities of various ratings that are part
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Eigelaar, Ilse. "The use of peer review as an evaluative tool in science." Thesis, Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2001. http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/52587.

Full text
Abstract:
Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2001.<br>ENGLISH 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 rel
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Mow, Karen Estelle, and 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.

Full text
Abstract:
This thesis considers the effects of research funding process design in the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The program delivery mechanisms that the ARC and NHMRC use differ in detail and each council claims to be using the best selection model possible. Neither council provides evidence that peer review is the best possible way of delivering government funding for research and neither can produce empirical evidence that they use the best possible peer review model to determine excellence. Data used in this thesis were gathered ov
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Avin, 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.

Full text
Abstract:
The thesis presents a reformative criticism of science funding by peer review. The criticism is based on epistemological scepticism, regarding the ability of scientific peers, or any other agent, to have access to sufficient information regarding the potential of proposed projects at the time of funding. The scepticism is based on the complexity of factors contributing to the merit of scientific projects, and the rate at which the parameters of this complex system change their values. By constructing models of different science funding mechanisms, a construction supported by historical evidenc
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Rankins, 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.

Full text
Abstract:
This qualitative inquiry explored the ways in which US-born, Black faculty member participants in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) interact with the National Science Foundation (NSF). Eight Black HBCU STEM faculty members with a range of involvement in NSF-related activities were individually interviewed. Topics of discussion with participants included their prior experiences with NSF, their understanding of the merit review process, and their understanding of their personal and institutional relationsh
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Books on the topic "Peer review of research grant proposals"

1

National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Peer Review Procedures. Improving research through peer review. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1987.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

National Cancer Institute (U.S.), ed. Share your expertise with us. [Bethesda Md.]: National Cancer Insitute, 2001.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Center for Scientific Review (National Institutes of Health). What happens to your grant application: A primer for new applicants. 8th ed. Bethesda, Md.]: Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 2011.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs, ed. Peer review: Reforms needed to ensure fairness in federal agency grant selection : report to the Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C: The Office, 1994.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Langfeldt, 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.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Richard, 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.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Hill, Anne. Addressing common problems: Guidance for submitting European Commission fifth framework proposals. Birmingham: Outreach Press, 2001.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Center, Horace Mann Learning, ed. Reviewing applications for discretionary grants and cooperative agreements: A workbook for application reviewers. [Washington, D.C.?]: Horace Mann Learning Center, 1988.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Center, 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.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

S, Frankel Mark, and Cave Jane, eds. Evaluating science and scientists: An east-west dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe. Budapest: Central European University Press, 1997.

Find full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
More sources

Book chapters on the topic "Peer review of research grant proposals"

1

Marušić, Ana. "Reviewing, Evaluating and Editing." In Collaborative Bioethics, 107–19. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22412-6_8.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractAs an early career researcher, you will probably not be extensively involved in reviewing journal articles or research proposals, or editing scientific journals. However, reviewing, evaluating and editing are important aspects of research. As an early career researcher, especially after getting a doctoral degree, you may be invited by a journal to serve as a peer reviewer, or may edit or work in a scientific peer review journal. It is important that you understand what to expect from a responsible review of your work – when you submit a manuscript to a journal or a grant proposal. In this chapter, we will look at different types of journal peer review. We will address the responsibilities of peer reviewers toward the authors and editor, including confidentiality, objectivity, and competing interests. We will focus on journal peer review, because this is something that you will certainly experience from the author’s side, and possibly as a reviewer. The principles of professional and responsible peer review also apply to other types of peer review, such as for grants of academic/research advancement.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Langfeldt, Liv. "The Decision-Making Constraints and Processes of Grant Peer Review, and Their Effects on the Review Outcome." In 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.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractWhen distributing grants, research councils use peer expertise as a guarantee for supporting the best projects. However, there are no clear norms for assessments, and there may be a large variation in what criteria reviewers emphasize – and how they are emphasized. The determinants of peer review may therefore be accidental, in the sense that who reviews what research and how reviews are organized may determine outcomes. This chapter deals with how the review process affects the outcome of grant review. It is a reprint of a study of the multitude of review procedures practiced in The Research Council of Norway (RCN) in the 1990s. While it is outdated as an empirical study of the RCN, it provides some general insights into the dynamics of grant review panels and the effects of different ways of organising the decision-making in the panels. Notably, it is still one of the few in-depth studies of grant review processes based on direct observation of panel meetings and full access to applications and review documents. A central finding is that rating scales and budget restrictions are more important than review guidelines for the kind of criteria applied by the reviewers. The decision-making methods applied by the review panels when ranking proposals are found to have substantial effects on the outcome. Some ranking methods tend to support uncontroversial and safe projects, whereas other methods give better chances for scholarly pluralism and controversial research.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Srinivas, Shamala, and Ranga V. Srinivas. "Grant Process and Peer Review: US National Institutes of Health System." In The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing, 799–810. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1284-1_51.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Schwartz, Samuel M., and Mischa E. Friedman. "The Peer Review System." In A Guide to NIH Grant Programs, 86–96. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069341.003.0007.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract The peer review system is an administrative creation first utilized by the NIH over forty years ago. It has enabled the NIH to recruit large numbers of prominent, primarily nonfederal scientists from institutions of higher learning, hospitals, re search foundations, and industry within the United States and neighboring countries. This impressive array of expertise is used by the agency to evaluate the scientific merit of grant and contract proposals. It represents a unique partnership between the NIH and the biomedical research community. The scientific expertise contributed by the nation’s biomedical researchers would be impossible for the NIH to duplicate with its own staff. On the other hand, the NIH represents an ideal rallying point for the research community for advocating strong, continuing support for biomedical research.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Schwartz, Samuel M., and Mischa E. Friedman. "Institute Review." In A Guide to NIH Grant Programs, 114–29. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069341.003.0009.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract The study sections in DRG are mistakenly thought by some to comprise the totality of NIH peer review activities. What is often overlooked is the very significant amount of peer review being carried out in the institutes. A few of the mechanisms (program projects, centers, contracts) reviewed in the institutes have received less than favorable acceptance by many in the scientific community because they are perceived to be a less sound way to support research than the ROI award program. Many of the institute reviews involve the most complex grant mechanisms, the most challenging review assignments for staff and reviewers, and result in the commit ment of substantial amounts of monies. Approximately 40 percent of NIH funds awarded for competing grant and cooperative agreement in FY 1990 were the result of reviews managed by the institutes. Table 9.1 should serve to highlight the size of the workload.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Tinkle, Mindy B. "Submitting a Research Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health: Navigating the Application and Peer Review System." In Intervention Research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/9780826109583.0021.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Schwartz, Samuel M., and Mischa E. Friedman. "Areas of Special Interest." In A Guide to NIH Grant Programs, 160–67. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069341.003.0013.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract Shared responsibility between members of the biomedical research community and NIH staff is an important aspect of the extramural programs and the peer review system. One aspect of this is service by members of the research community on advisory councils and review panels. In addition, many of these individuals are Pis themselves. They and their institutions as applicants share important roles in assur ing the responsible and ethical conduct of research and the training for this, the proper care of human subjects and experimental animals in research protocols, the equitable involvement of minorities and women as subjects in clinical research, and the protection of research personnel and the environment.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Schwartz, Samuel M., and Mischa E. Friedman. "National Advisory Councils." In A Guide to NIH Grant Programs, 130–38. Oxford University PressNew York, NY, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195069341.003.0010.

Full text
Abstract:
Abstract Historically, national advisory councils were the first on the peer review scene. In 1937, Congress created the National Cancer Institute (NCI), along with an advisory council, and authorized the support of research and research training. With the passage of the Public Health Service Act in 1944, the NCI became part of NIH and a National Advisory Health Council was directed to provide support for other areas of biomedical research. After World War Il, the NIH inherited a variety of research activities supported by other agencies. The National Advisory Health Council felt the need for scientific assistance in the review of grant applications. In 1946, NIH created the Office of Research Grants, which eventually became the DRG of today, and twenty-one study sections to help the National Advisory Health Council carry out its mandate to make grant awards. This briefly is how it all began and may help to place in perspective the origin of national advisory councils, study sections, and other similar scientific review groups.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

Gross, Alan G., and Joseph E. Harmon. "Evaluation Before Publication." In The Internet Revolution in the Sciences and Humanities. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190465926.003.0010.

Full text
Abstract:
In the midst of the controversy over the Nemesis affair—over whether a hidden star was the cause of periodic extinctions on Earth—David Raup and Jack Sepkoski were faced with a dilemma peer review had deliberately created: . . . The Tremaine analysis was technically hearsay, because it did not exist in the conventional sense of a scientific publication. To be sure, he sent us a copy of the manuscript shortly before submitting it for publication in a special volume based on the Tucson meeting. We were working on a response but could not say anything substantive about it publically, for fear of having our own paper on the subject disqualified by prior publication in the press. Besides, we had nothing to rebut until Tremaine’s paper was reviewed, revised, and finally published. . . . Precisely: Only peer review followed by publication gave them something to rebut. A survivor after a half-century of criticism concerning its efficacy, peer review remains the best guarantee that published manuscripts and funded grant proposals conform closely to community standards. Moreover, in both the sciences and the humanities, the review criteria are the same: originality, significance to the discipline, argumenta­tive competence, and clarity of expression. When we examine the ways the Internet is transforming peer review, we will see that the transparency and interactivity of the new medium make possible sounder judgments according to these criteria. Interactivity gives practitioners a firmer sense of the disciplinary-specific meanings of the standards on which their judgments are based; transparency broadcasts this firmer sense to the discipline as a whole. Under any form of peer review, knowledge is what it has always been, an agonistic system in flux, the site of a constant struggle for survival in the realm of ideas. But it is a system that cannot function properly unless each component—each bundle of claims, evidence, and argument—exhibits provisional stability. To confer this stability is the task of peer review.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

Tinkle, Mindy B., and Ann Marie McCarthy. "Submitting a Research Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health: Navigating the Application and Peer Review System." In Intervention Research and Evidence-Based Quality Improvement. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/9780826155719.0024.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Conference papers on the topic "Peer review of research grant proposals"

1

Schiffbänker, Helene. "Implementing ‘Gender in Research’ as Inclusive Excellence Indicator – Practices in peer review panels." In 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023). 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.55835/64425f1ea45f9765a1e48751.

Full text
Abstract:
Research funding organisations (RFOs) are key actors for guiding and reforming the assessment of grant applications. To mitigate gender bias, many RFOs have various policies in place. But how are formal gender equality policies implemented in practice by peer review panels? We analyse how one policy, incorporating the sex and gender dimension in research content and innovation (GiRI), is assessed in practice. Case studies were conducted in selected national RFOs which have implemented GiRI as an element of excellence. Data was collected through panel observations and interviews with staff and
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Reports on the topic "Peer review of research grant proposals"

1

Spaulding, Jesse, and Gleb Pitsevich. Thinklab: A platform for open review of research grant proposals [project]. ThinkLab, February 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.15363/thinklab.18.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Spaulding, Jesse, and Gleb Pitsevich. Thinklab: A platform for open review of research grant proposals [proposal]. ThinkLab, February 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.15363/thinklab.a12.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Heidler, Richard. Funding Research Data Infrastructures: Funding Criteria in Grant Peer Review. Fteval - Austrian Platform for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, March 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.22163/fteval.2020.467.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
You might also be interested in the extended bibliographies on the topic 'Peer review of research grant proposals' for particular source types:
Journal articles Books
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography