ArticleF1000Research2017
The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.
Article in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Doctoral training to support sustainable soil geochemistry research in Africa.Interface focus · 2024Article
- How international research consortia can strengthen organisations' research systems and promote a conducive environment and culture.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Guidance and conceptual tools to inform the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening interventions.BMJ global health · 2021Review
- Article
- Evaluation of stakeholder views on peer review of NIHR applications for funding: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2018Article
- Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.F1000Research · 2018Article
- The peer review process for awarding funds to international science research consortia: a qualitative developmental evaluation.F1000Research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.