NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study

被引:11
作者
Agarwal, Rajiv [1 ,2 ]
Tu, Wanzhu [3 ]
机构
[1] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Nephrol, 1481 West 10th St, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[2] Richard L Roudebush Vet Adm Med Ctr, 1481 West 10th St, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
[3] Indiana Univ Sch Med, Indiana Univ Ctr Aging Res, Dept Biostat, Indianapolis, IN USA
关键词
NIH grants; research productivity; h-index;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-021-06659-y
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background The Research Project Grant (R01) is the oldest grant mechanism used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Receiving an R01 award is often taken as a sign of scientific success. We presented normative data on multiple productivity and impact metrics for a more objective assessment of funded grants' scientific success. Methods All initial R01 grants awarded by NIH in the year 2000 were prospectively followed and evaluated using the numbers of publications and citations, as well as the h-indices at the grant level. We examined the variability, time trends, and relations among these metrics to better understand the funded projects' cumulative output and impact. Results In the 20 years since initial funding, 4451 R01 grants generated a total of 55,053 publications. These publications were cumulatively cited 3,705,553 times over 736,811 citation years. The median number of publications was 8 (25(th), 75(th) percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25(th), 75(th) percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25(th), 75(th) percentiles 4, 13) per grant, respectively. The time courses of publication, citation, and accumulation of h-index were highly variable among the awarded grants. Although the metrics were correlated within an award, they reflected the grant's success in different domains. Conclusion Numbers of publications, citations, and h-indices vary greatly among funded R01 grants. When used together, these metrics provide a more complete picture of the productivity and long-term impact of a funded grant.
引用
收藏
页码:104 / 109
页数:6
相关论文
共 9 条
  • [1] Science of science
    Fortunato, Santo
    Bergstrom, Carl T.
    Boerner, Katy
    Evans, James A.
    Helbing, Dirk
    Milojevic, Stasa
    Petersen, Alexander M.
    Radicchi, Filippo
    Sinatra, Roberta
    Uzzi, Brian
    Vespignani, Alessandro
    Waltman, Ludo
    Wang, Dashun
    Barabasi, Albert-Laszlo
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2018, 359 (6379)
  • [2] Does the h index have predictive power?
    Hirsch, J. E.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2007, 104 (49) : 19193 - 19198
  • [3] An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output
    Hirsch, JE
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2005, 102 (46) : 16569 - 16572
  • [4] NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research
    Kotchen, TA
    Lindquist, T
    Malik, K
    Ehrenfeld, E
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (07): : 836 - 843
  • [5] Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact
    Li, Jichao
    Yin, Yian
    Fortunato, Santo
    Wang, Dashun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY INTERFACE, 2020, 17 (165)
  • [6] Morse R., 2015, U.S. News and World Report
  • [7] National RC, 2005, BRIDG IND FOST IND N
  • [8] Impact fact-or fiction?
    Pulverer, Bernd
    [J]. EMBO JOURNAL, 2013, 32 (12) : 1651 - 1652
  • [9] H-index: however ranked, citations need context
    Wendl, Michael C.
    [J]. NATURE, 2007, 449 (7161) : 403 - 403