Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 1/2022

01-01-2022 | Original Research

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

Authors: Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS, Wanzhu Tu, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

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 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25th, 75th percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25th, 75th 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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA 2004; 291(7):836-843.CrossRef Kotchen TA, Lindquist T, Malik K, Ehrenfeld E. NIH peer review of grant applications for clinical research. JAMA 2004; 291(7):836-843.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference National RC. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005. National RC. Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
3.
go back to reference Morse R, Vega-Rodriguez J, Castonguay A, Brooks E. Methodology: 2021 best medical school rankings. US News and World Report 2020 Mar 16. Morse R, Vega-Rodriguez J, Castonguay A, Brooks E. Methodology: 2021 best medical school rankings. US News and World Report 2020 Mar 16.
4.
go back to reference Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102(46):16569-16572.CrossRef Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102(46):16569-16572.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Hirsch JE. Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104(49):19193-19198.CrossRef Hirsch JE. Does the H index have predictive power? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104(49):19193-19198.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Fortunato S, Bergstrom CT, Borner K, Evans JA, Helbing D, Milojevic S et al. Science of science. Science 2018; 359(6379). Fortunato S, Bergstrom CT, Borner K, Evans JA, Helbing D, Milojevic S et al. Science of science. Science 2018; 359(6379).
7.
go back to reference Li J, Yin Y, Fortunato S, Wang D. Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. J R Soc Interface 2020; 17(165):20200135.CrossRef Li J, Yin Y, Fortunato S, Wang D. Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. J R Soc Interface 2020; 17(165):20200135.CrossRef
8.
9.
go back to reference Wendl MC. H-index: however ranked, citations need context. Nature 2007; 449(7161):403.CrossRef Wendl MC. H-index: however ranked, citations need context. Nature 2007; 449(7161):403.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
NIH Funding, Research Productivity, and Scientific Impact: a 20-Year Study
Authors
Rajiv Agarwal, MD, MS
Wanzhu Tu, PhD
Publication date
01-01-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-021-06659-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Journal of General Internal Medicine 1/2022 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine