Search results
Create the page "Review" on this wiki! See also the search results found.
Page title matches
- | page = Peer review ...] for evaluating the scientific quality of a piece of information. In peer review a number of people that can be considered as reasonably acquainted with the8 KB (1,222 words) - 09:17, 14 June 2014
- | page = Peer review method ...e the page [[Peer review]]. For other uses, see the [[:en:Peer review|Peer review]] page in Wikipedia.9 KB (1,492 words) - 16:03, 29 January 2011
- ...ver and small intestine were reviewed. This report is primarily meant as a review for researchers using animal models to study pharmacokinetics and toxicokin993 bytes (126 words) - 06:33, 18 June 2010
- 836 bytes (109 words) - 11:43, 16 November 2010
- ..., and policy making upon issues of environment and environmental health: a review of literature and recent project results. Environmental Health 2011, 10:58 environmental health: a review of literature and66 KB (9,194 words) - 06:27, 4 March 2015
Page text matches
- 5. Goals Related to Peer Review and Public Participation *Agencies should consider appropriate procedures for peer review and public participation.28 KB (4,037 words) - 11:12, 20 August 2014
- ...ean Commission. These actions include regular revision, as with the annual review of total allowable catches (TACs), periodic revision of the multi-annual gu6 KB (860 words) - 11:24, 15 June 2012
- ...e aim of HENVINET is to support such informed policy making. HENVINET will review, exploit and disseminate knowledge on environmental health issues based on4 KB (520 words) - 19:08, 22 November 2009
- ...ent, combined with preliminary results of the INTARESE project, where such review is an early deliverable for environmental monitoring data, biomarkers and h3 KB (449 words) - 10:07, 19 December 2007
- ...ach study result is used as a quintile point for the distribution. Another review is Marckmann and Gronbaek 1999 that concluded that 0.6-0.9 g/d of omega-3 r ...aek M. Fish consumption and coronary heart disease mortality. A systematic review of prospective cohort studies. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1999;2 KB (277 words) - 08:12, 13 October 2012
- || 6|| Review scope || 7|| Review definition15 KB (2,220 words) - 12:01, 10 January 2014
- ::;[[:Intarese:Review of expert elicitation|Expert panel/elicitation]]: The purpose is to obtain ::;[[:Intarese:Review of multiple-bias modelling|Multiple-bias modelling]]: The purpose is to cor19 KB (2,420 words) - 11:41, 24 October 2008
- ...rial Board and provide a fixed sum of money to cover the costs of the peer-review process. ...ditorial Board selects (usually) two peer reviewers. The scope of the peer review is slightly different than traditionally. The major question that is asked6 KB (947 words) - 11:42, 24 October 2008
- ...ffects of fish consumption in children]] (background: Karvonen will anyway review fish health benefits; ready drafted working outline on fish health hazards9 KB (1,226 words) - 15:07, 16 December 2009
- ...process - scientific acceptability of definition, given scope → peer review | Peer review9 KB (1,312 words) - 12:02, 26 March 2009
- ...llutant regulation and public sensibility. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 6 (September):229-32</ref>. Participation can be seen as a means to improve38 KB (5,608 words) - 18:17, 8 April 2011
- * A systematic literature review can be performed for the definition attribute of a variable. ===Systematic literature review===8 KB (1,253 words) - 14:56, 4 November 2009
- [[Category:Review]]145 bytes (17 words) - 08:08, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]138 bytes (15 words) - 08:15, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]147 bytes (15 words) - 11:02, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]154 bytes (17 words) - 11:11, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]155 bytes (16 words) - 11:17, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]147 bytes (16 words) - 11:28, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]140 bytes (15 words) - 11:37, 16 March 2009
- [[Category:Review]]148 bytes (15 words) - 11:47, 16 March 2009