Książki na temat „Peer review of research grant proposals”
Utwórz poprawne odniesienie w stylach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard i wielu innych
Sprawdź 33 najlepszych książek 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.
Przeglądaj książki z różnych dziedzin i twórz odpowiednie bibliografie.
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Peer Review Procedures. Improving research through peer review. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1987.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaNational Cancer Institute (U.S.), ed. Share your expertise with us. [Bethesda Md.]: National Cancer Insitute, 2001.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaCenter 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.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaUnited 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.
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 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 źródłaHill, Anne. Addressing common problems: Guidance for submitting European Commission fifth framework proposals. Birmingham: Outreach Press, 2001.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaCenter, 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.
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, 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.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaShestopal, A. V., та V. I. Konnov. Sot︠s︡ialʹno-politicheskai︠a︡ funkt︠s︡ii︠a︡ nat︠s︡ionalʹnykh nauchnykh fondov: Sbornik nauchnykh stateĭ. Moskva: Izdatelʹstvo "MGIMO-Universitet", 2016.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródła1956-, Evans Martyn, ed. A decent proposal: Ethical review of clinical research. New York, N.Y: Wiley, 1996.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaD, Muraskin Lana, United States. National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, and Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.), eds. Strengthening the standards: Recommendations for OERI peer review : summary report, draft January 30, 1999. [Washington, DC]: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, 1999.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaBadji, Toure Lalla, and African Development Foundation, eds. Mobilizing the grassroots for community health: An ADF research reader. Washington, D.C. (1400 Eye St., N.W., 10th floor, Washington 20005): African Development Foundation, 1995.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaD, Muraskin Lana, August and Associates, and United States. National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board, eds. Strengthening the standards: Recommendations for OERI Peer Review : summary report prepared for the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. Washington, DC (80 F St., NW, Washington 20208-7564): The Board, 1999.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaBadji, Toure Lalla, and African Development Foundation (U.S.), eds. Mobilizing the grassroots for community health: An ADF research reader. Washington, D.C. (1400 Eye St., N.W., 10th floor, Washington 20005): African Development Foundation, 1995.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaNational Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology's Peer Review Program., ed. Peer review in the Department of Energy, Office of Science and Technology: Interim report. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1997.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaNational Institutes of Health (U.S.), ed. NIH peer review of research grant applications. [Bethesda, Md.]: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institites of Health, 1987.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaNational Institutes of Health (U.S.), ed. NIH peer review of research grant applications. [Bethesda, Md.]: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1988.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaOffice, General Accounting. Department of Education grant award. Washington, D.C: The Office, 1992.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaOffice, General Accounting. Department of Education grant award. Washington, D.C: The Office, 1992.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaShare your expertise with us. [Bethesda, Md.]: National Cancer Institute, 2002.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródła(Editor), Mark S. Frankel, and Jane Cave (Editor), eds. Evaluating Science and Scientists: An East-West Dialogue on Research Evaluation in Post-Communist Europe. A Central European University Press Book, 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 źródłaDogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth. McFarland & Company, Incorporated Publishers, 2012.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaDogmatism in science and medicine: How dominant theories monopolize research and stifle the search for truth. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co., 2012.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródła(US), National Research Council, and Committee on the Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology's Peer Review Program. Peer Review in the Department of Energy-Office of Science and Technology: Interim Report. National Academies Press, 1997.
Znajdź pełny tekst źródłaPeach, Ken. Reviewing Research, Making Proposals and Evaluating Science. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198796077.003.0011.
Pełny tekst źródłaSpyns, Peter, та Maria-Esther Vidal. Научное рецензирование. Лучшие практики и рекомендации. Редактори Elena Tikhonova та Olga Kirillova. Eco-Vector, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.17816/spr202101.
Pełny tekst źródłaCho, Jeasik. Evaluating Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199330010.001.0001.
Pełny tekst źródłaBoyer-Kassem, Thomas, Conor Mayo-Wilson, and Michael Weisberg, eds. Scientific Collaboration and Collective Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190680534.001.0001.
Pełny tekst źródłaMartinho Belchior, Alirio, Carlos Mascarenhas, Maha Othman, Marília Rua, Mari Takashima, Marta Silva, Laila Albalushi, et al. iNURSING JOURNAL - Manual for Authors: The step-by-step instructions guide. International Nursing School Ltd., 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.52457/qprz4666.
Pełny tekst źródła