Peer review: Selecting the best science [Book Review]

Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17 (1997)
Abstract
The major challenge facing today’s biomedical researchers is the increasing competition for available funds. The competitive review process, through which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards grants, is built upon review by a committee of expert scientists. The NIH is firmly committed to ensuring that its peer review system is fair and objective.
Keywords peer review  conflicts of interest  confidentiality  funding decisions
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-997-0013-7
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,191
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Peer Review and Innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.
Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

24 ( #211,693 of 2,172,040 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #325,337 of 2,172,040 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums