scholarly journals Strengthening Community Involvement in Grant Review: Insights from the Community–University Research Partnership (CURES) Pilot Review Process

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Paberzs ◽  
Patricia Piechowski ◽  
Debra Warrick ◽  
Carolyn Grawi ◽  
Celeste Choate ◽  
...  
1986 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 726-727
Author(s):  
RS Mackenzie ◽  
RE Martin
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (21) ◽  
pp. 2519-2521
Author(s):  
Jonathan Chernoff

Much has been written about the seemingly capricious manner by which grant proposals are ranked and awarded by the National Institutes of Health and similar agencies, yet some scientists are able to maintain stable funding over long periods of time. While raw luck may certainly play a role in this process, particularly when paylines are tight, it is also possible that skill—in the art of grant writing at least—could represent a decisive factor. Here, I submit that, even as we attempt to reform and one day perfect the grant review process, there are actions that applicants can take today to get better results from the system we have.


1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
RD Lindquist ◽  
MF Tracy ◽  
D Treat-Jacobson

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.


2004 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen McLaughlin ◽  
Kristine Black-Hawkins

2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Smitha Uthaman ◽  
Deborah Lu ◽  
Thomas Kowalski

This paper summarizes the Post-Grant Review process, one of the many interesting aspects of patent reform brought about by the enactment of the America Invents Act, and the effect it may have on how Biotechnology companies conduct business and manage their intellectual property.


2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory W. Hammond ◽  
Mê-Linh Lê ◽  
Tannis Novotny ◽  
Stephanie P. B. Caligiuri ◽  
Grant N. Pierce ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (9) ◽  
pp. 597-600
Author(s):  
Ellen L. Brown ◽  
Martha L. Bruce ◽  
Pamela Nassisi ◽  
Wendy Katt ◽  
Susan Rinder

1990 ◽  
Vol 29 (04) ◽  
pp. 263-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Arnaud ◽  
J. H. van Bemmel ◽  
R. Degani ◽  
P. W. Macfarlane ◽  
Chr. Zywietz ◽  
...  

AbstractComputer processing of electrocardiograms (ECGs) has over the last 15 years increased rapidly. Still, there are at present no standards for computer ECG interpretation. Different techniques are used not only for measurement and interpretation, but also for transmission and storage of data. In order to fill these gaps, a large international project, sponsored by the European Commission, was launched in 1980 to develop “Common Standards for Quantitative Electrocardiography (CSE)”. The main objective of the first CSE study was to reduce the wide variation in wave measurements currently obtained by ECG computer programs. The second study was started in 1985 and aimed at the assessment and improvement of diagnostic classification of ECG interpretation programs. To this end reference libraries of well documented ECGs have been developed and comprehensive reviewing schemes devised for the visual and computer analysis of ECGs. This task was performed by a board of cardiologists in a Delphi review process, and by 9 VCG and 10 standard 12-lead programs developed by university research groups and by industry. A third action was started in June 1989 to harmonize acquisition, encoding, interchange and storing of digital ECG data. The action thus performed have become internationally recognized milestones for the standardization of quantitative electrocardiography.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document