patent,
cheap Authentic jordans
. The economists report their findings April 23 in Science,
cheap jordans for sale
.
“It’s good news. It’s suggesting that [grant reviewers] do on average have a clue,
cheap retro jordans
,” says Lars Lefgren,
cheap wholesale jordans
, an economist at Brigham Young University in Salt Lake City. “Some people complain that the NIH may be biased in terms of awarding grants to people with big names or established track records but who don’t have the most exciting or novel research. This study suggests those types of concerns may not happen on average.”
While the results do suggest that peer review can identify and fund impressive grant applications, Berg says that there are lots of hits and misses. Some very well-scored grants have relatively low publication records,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, and some grants that barely made the cut turned out to be superstars. “There’s a lot of scatter at every score,
cheap jordans online
,” he notes. But that’s to be expected. “It’s about predicting the future,
cheap jordan shoes
,” he explains. “A lot of scores are given for experiments that haven’t been performed yet. It’s like picking stocks: You do what you can do, but you don’t expect 100 percent accuracy.” And when money is tight and funding levels are extremely competitive, a grant proposal that just barely got funded is probably not actually a better proposal than the one that just barely missed the cut.
The study included a large percentage of grants that were competitive renewals. These are grants that have already been funded but are not complete and need a further five years of work,
cheap jordans
. These grants tend to receive much higher scores and are much more likely to be funded than brand

http://siemprelucenacf...p;view=article&id=115

http://www.soundpoolra...hread.php?thread_id=61124

http://www.v-tadawul.n...ale&p=88247#post88247