ArticleMolecular psychiatry2015
Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants.
Article in Molecular psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine learning in scientific grant review: algorithmically predicting project efficiency in high energy physics.European journal for philosophy of science · 2022Article
- Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists.Science advances · 2019Article
- Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.PloS one · 2018Article
- Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Opinion: The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- The argument for diversifying the NIH grant portfolio.Molecular biology of the cell · 2017Article
- How should novelty be valued in science?eLife · 2017Article
- Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?F1000Research · 2017Review
- Article
- Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.Circulation research · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous reports from National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have suggested that peer review scores of funded grants bear no association with grant citation impact and productivity. This lack of association, if true, may be particularly concerning during times of increasing competition for increasingly limited funds. We analyzed the citation impact and productivity for 1755 de novo investigator-initiated R01 grants funded for at least 2 years by National Institute of Mental Health between 2000 and 2009. Consistent with previous reports, we found no association between grant percentile ranking and subsequent productivity and citation impact, even after accounting for subject categories, years of publication, duration and amounts of funding, as well as a number of investigator-specific measures. Prior investigator funding and academic productivity were moderately strong predictors of grant citation impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.