The transparency of the peer-review system of grant applications

The transparency of the peer-review system of grant applications

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Ricardo Andrés Cartes-Velasquez
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Universidad de Concepción. 2018-01-01
Series:	Journal of Oral Research
Online Access:	http://joralres.com/index.php/JOR/article/view/joralres.2018.010/381

Similar Items

Grant application review: the case of transparency.
by: David Gurwitz, et al.
Published: (2014-12-01)

Is it time for open peer-review?
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2016-11-01)

Peer-review, like democracy, is not perfect but… is it a sacred cow?
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2015-04-01)

Peer review of grant applications: criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices.
by: Hendy Abdoul, et al.
Published: (2012-01-01)

Trialing transparent peer review
by: Andrew Cosgrove, et al.
Published: (2017-09-01)

The Necessities for the Transparent Peer-Review
by: Jung Hun Lee, et al.
Published: (2021-04-01)

Peer review of grant applications: a simple method to identify proposals with discordant reviews.
by: Bruno Giraudeau, et al.
Published: (2011-01-01)

Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers
by: Amreen Mughal, et al.
Published: (2021-07-01)

Teleconference versus face-to-face scientific peer review of grant application: effects on review outcomes.
by: Stephen A Gallo, et al.
Published: (2013-01-01)

Transparent peer review one year on
Published: (2016-11-01)

Transparent peer review trial: the results
by: Andrew Cosgrove, et al.
Published: (2018-11-01)

Grant Peer Review: Improving Inter-Rater Reliability with Training.
by: David N Sattler, et al.
Published: (2015-01-01)

NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity
by: Ferric C Fang, et al.
Published: (2016-02-01)

An analysis of preliminary and post-discussion priority scores for grant applications peer reviewed by the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH.
by: Michael R Martin, et al.
Published: (2010-11-01)

Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals.
by: Jelte M Wicherts
Published: (2016-01-01)

Acknowledgement to Reviewers
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2017-12-01)

Acknowledgement to reviewers.
by: Ricardo Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2016-12-01)

What makes an effective grants peer reviewer? An exploratory study of the necessary skills.
by: Miriam L E Steiner Davis, et al.
Published: (2020-01-01)

Moving peer review transparency from process to praxis
by: Emily Ford
Published: (2019-10-01)

Explainability of a Machine Learning Granting Scoring Model in Peer-to-Peer Lending
by: Miller Janny Ariza-Garzon, et al.
Published: (2020-01-01)

Opening and Reusing Transparent Peer Reviews with Automatic Article Annotation
by: Afshin Sadeghi, et al.
Published: (2019-02-01)

Peer-Review Guidelines Promoting Replicability and Transparency in Psychological Science
by: Davis, W.E, et al.
Published: (2018)

Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.
by: Andrea C Tricco, et al.
Published: (2017-01-01)

Grant application
by: Sven Skjennebrg (ed.)
Published: (1992-10-01)

‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function
by: John Coveney, et al.
Published: (2017-12-01)

History, Research, and Challenges: A Systematic Analysis of Peer Review for Journals, Grants, and Faculty Appointments
by: Mu-Hsuan Huang, et al.
Published: (2016-06-01)

Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
by: Ivan Buljan, et al.
Published: (2021-06-01)

Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
by: Ivan Buljan, et al.
Published: (2021-09-01)

Transparency and training in peer review: Discussing the contributions of early-career researchers to the review process
Published: (2021-09-01)

Peer specialist trainings for Orange County, California| A grant proposal
by: Suh, Min
Published: (2016)

Exponential growth of dental schools in Chile: effects on academic, economic and workforce issues
by: Ricardo Andres Cartes-Velasquez
Published: (2013-12-01)

Academic career, two misconceptions
by: Ricardo Andrés Cartes-Velasquez
Published: (2018-02-01)

Alfabetismo en salud: bases conceptuales y evidencia en odontología
by: Ricardo Andrés Cartes-Velásquez
Published: (2015-04-01)

Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation
by: Ulrich ePöschl
Published: (2012-07-01)

Opening up Peer Review in Life: Towards a Transparent and Reliable Process
by: Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto
Published: (2014-05-01)

Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: a general estimating equations approach.
by: Rüdiger Mutz, et al.
Published: (2012-01-01)

Relevance of First-Tier, Peer-Reviewed Journals in the Tenure and Promotion Process at Non-Doctoral Granting Engineering Institutions
by: Amanda S. Florio, et al.
Published: (2012-02-01)

Individual versus general structured feedback to improve agreement in grant peer review: a randomized controlled trial
by: Jan-Ole Hesselberg, et al.
Published: (2021-09-01)

Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives
by: Groves Trish, et al.
Published: (2010-10-01)

The Delphi process: a solution for reviewing novel grant applications
by: Cath Holliday, et al.
Published: (2010-08-01)