The ripple effects of funding on researchers and output.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sattari R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9032967 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The ripple effects of funding on researchers and output.
Sattari Reza R Bae Jung J Berkes Enrico E Weinberg Bruce A BA
Science advances 20220422 16
Using unique, new, matched UMETRICS data on people employed on research projects and Author-ity data on biomedical publications, this paper shows that National Institutes of Health funding stimulates research by supporting the teams that conduct it. While faculty-both principal investigators (PIs) and other faculty-and their productivity are heavily affected by funding, so are trainees and staff. The largest effects of funding on research output are ripple effects on publications that do not inc ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6149360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A widely held memory consolidation theory posits that memory of events and space is initially stored in the hippocampus (HPC) in a time-limited manner and is consolidated in the neocortex for permanent storage. Although posttraining HPC lesions result in temporally graded amnesia, the precise HPC circuits and mechanisms involved in remote memory storage remain poorly understood. To investigate the role of the trisynaptic pathway in the consolidation process we employed the CA3-TeTX transgenic mouse, in which CA3 output can be specifically and inducibly controlled. We found that posttraining blockade of CA3 output for up to 4 weeks impairs the consolidation of contextual fear memory. Moreover, in vivo hippocampal recordings revealed a reduced intrinsic frequency of CA1 ripples and a significant decrease in the experience-dependent, ripple-associated coordinated reactivation of CA1 cell pairs. Collectively, these results suggest that the posttraining integrity of the trisynaptic pathway and the ripple-associated reactivation of hippocampal memory engram are crucial for memory consolidation.
| S-EPMC2728553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBoth citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.ObjectiveTo evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.ResultsThere were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.
| S-EPMC9856501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent data highlights an imbalance in research grant success among groups underrepresented within the biomedical workforce, including racial/ethnic minorities and women. However, there is no data on grant success for researchers with disabilities. For these analyses, aggregate data on self-reported disability status for National Institute on Health (NIH) research grant applicants and awardees was obtained from 2008 to 2018, including disability category: mobility/orthopedic, hearing, visual disabilities, and other disabilities. The percentage of applications and awards, as well as grant success rates (% of applicants receiving awards), by Principal Investigators (PIs) disability status were calculated. Data was desegregated, and logistic models determined trend of applicants reporting disability over time. The percentage of NIH grant applicants with PIs reporting a disability significantly declined from 1.9% in 2008, to 1.2% in 2018 (p<0.001). Data on grant awardees was similar, 1.9% of awards in 2008, declining to 1.2% in 2018 (p<0.001) had PIs reporting a disability. Across all years, the percentage of applications and awards with PIs reporting visual disabilities was lower than the percentage reporting mobility/orthopedic, or hearing disabilities (16.5%, 34.2%, and 37.8% in 2008, respectively). Overall grant success rates differed by disability status (27.2% for those reporting disability vs 29.7% in those reporting no disability, p<0.001). The lowest overall grant success rate was among PIs reporting unknown disability status or who withheld this status (18.6%). These results underscore the underrepresentation of researchers with disabilities among grant applicants and awardees, and indicate lower grant success rates among PIs reporting disabilities.
| S-EPMC7053734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen researchers' careers are disrupted by life events - such as illness or childbirth - they often need to take extended time off. This creates a gap in their research output that can reduce their chances of winning funding. In Australia, applicants can disclose their career disruptions and peer reviewers are instructed to make appropriate adjustments. However, it is not clear if and how applicants use career disruption sections or how reviewers adjust and if they do it consistently.MethodsTo examine career disruption, we used surveys of the Australian health and medical research community. We used both a random sample of Australian authors on PubMed and a non-random convenience sample.ResultsRespondents expressed concerns that sharing information on career disruption would harm their chances of being funded, with 13% saying they have medical or social circumstances but would not include it in their application, with concerns about appearing 'weak'. Women were more reluctant to include disruption. There was inconsistency in how disruption was adjusted for, with less time given for those with depression compared with caring responsibilities, and less time given for those who did not provide medical details of their disruption.ConclusionsThe current system is likely not adequately adjusting for career disruption and this may help explain the ongoing funding gap for senior women in Australia.FundingNational Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellowship (Barnett).
| S-EPMC9038190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academia is becoming more and more competitive, especially for young scientists, so it is important to understand the factors that affect success in academic careers. To survive in academia, it is crucial to obtain research funding. Previous studies have investigated factors that affect the funding success of researchers. In this paper, we focus on research collaboration structure as a factor affecting funding success. More specifically, we investigate the effects of participation in joint research projects, number of joint research projects, and centrality in the collaborative network on the future funding success of junior researchers in Japan. Our results show that participation in joint research projects and the number of such projects significantly affect the future funding success of junior researchers. Furthermore, the median number of years of funding received by researchers involved in joint research projects was found to be about 1.5 times greater than that of researchers not involved in joint research projects, and the average amount of research funding received after 10 years is about 2-4 times more, suggesting that researchers with collaboration ties with other researchers in the early stages of their career tend to be more successful in the future.
| S-EPMC9651575 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9991981 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEarly career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group's recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission.Methods and findingsFirst-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000-2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications-for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82-3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22-2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications.ConclusionsEncouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2-4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.
| S-EPMC8601543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The challenge of research funding constraints has brought to bear enormous pressure on researchers. Research productivity is relevant to prestige and career progression of academic staff. However, this study aimed to explore significant challenges associated with researchers' productivity and the impact of non-funding of research in Nigerian research and tertiary institutions. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design involving academics at various research and tertiary institutions across the six geographical regions in Nigeria. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants who consented to take part in this study. Exactly 4,159 questionnaires were administered and 2,350 were completely filled and returned. Pearson correlation matrices with logistic regression were used for data analysis and are presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: On challenges faced by respondents, 42.98% reported a lack of research funding, 17.11% mentioned brain drain challenge while 8.85% indicated a lack of motivation. Of the 23,927 publications reported, the number of those in sciences, engineering, and medical sciences averaged 9.6, 11.5, and 9.5 respectively. The average number of publications by women (10.8) was more than by men (9.7). Lecturers had the highest average research publication number (11.8) followed by researchers (10.2) and others (3.9). Men had the highest (11.9) average number of conferences compared to women (9.2). Participants in engineering had an average number of 13.8 conferences per respondents followed by those in education (11.2), sciences (11.1), and 10.9 for those in agricultural sciences. The result revealed a negative significant correlation between research publication and academic qualification at p < 0.01. Positive significant correlation was observed between research productivity and discipline at p < 0.05. Findings show that the combined influence of the independent variables on research productivity was significant using linear regression analysis. Conclusions: The failure to prioritize research has resulted in underdevelopment in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative that the federal government prioritize research and establish a functional Special Research Trust Fund to oversee research funding in Nigeria.
| S-EPMC8596491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Postdoctoral training is a typical step in the course of an academic career, but very little is known about postdoctoral researchers (PDRs) working in the UK. This study used an online survey to explore, for the first time, relevant environmental factors which may be linked to the research output of PDRs in terms of the number of peer-reviewed articles per year of PDR employment. The findings showed reliable links between the research output and research institutions, time spent as PDR, and parental education, whereas no clear links were observed between PDRs' output and research area, nationality, gender, number of siblings, or work environment. PDRs based in universities tended to publish, on average, more than the ones based in research centres. PDRs with children tended to stay longer in postdoctoral employment than PDRs without children. Moreover, research output tended to be higher in PDRs with fathers educated at secondary or higher level. The work environment did not affect output directly, but about 1/5 of PDRs were not satisfied with their job or institutional support and about 2/3 of them perceived their job prospects as "difficult". The results from this exploratory study raise important questions, which need to be addressed in large-scale studies in order to understand (and monitor) how PDRs' family and work environment interact with their research output-an essential step given the crucial role of PDRs in research and development in the country.
| S-EPMC3976345 | biostudies-literature