ReviewF1000Research2017
What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?
Review in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Research Conducted in Women Was Deemed More Impactful but Less Publishable than the Same Research Conducted in Men.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Trial
- Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- The time has come for big changes to improve research funding.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- A peer-review decision support tool for research funding decision-making using the analytic hierarchy process.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- The costs and benefits of research grant funding peer review.F1000Research · 2026Article
- Little women: the relevance and reliance on mouse models for mammary gland research and next steps for translation.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2025Review
- Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Registered report protocol: Factors associated with inter-rater agreement in grant peer review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Messing with Merton: The intersection between open science practices and Mertonian values.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- A maturity model for the scientific review of clinical trial designs and their informativeness.Trials · 2024Article
- Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.eLife · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 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.