ArticleCirculation research2015
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.
Article in Circulation research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 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
- The costs of competition in distributing scarce research funds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Bibliometric and Visualization Analysis of the Ecology of Men's Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Research in MENA (1985-2022): Outputs, Trends, Shortcomings and Hotspots.Arab journal of urology · 2023Review
- Spotlight on Early COVID-19 Research Productivity: A 1-Year Bibliometric Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE.PloS one · 2022Article
- The 2020 research pandemic: A bibliometric analysis of publications on COVID-19 and their scientific impact during the first months.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2021Article
- Psycho-Oncology: A Bibliometric Review of the 100 Most-Cited Articles.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Top-cited articles in medical professionalism: a bibliometric analysis versus altmetric scores.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Article
- Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.F1000Research · 2018Article
- 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
- Methodological Rigor in Preclinical Cardiovascular Studies: Targets to Enhance Reproducibility and Promote Research Translation.Circulation research · 2017Review
- What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?F1000Research · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are conflicting data about the ability of peer review percentile rankings to predict grant productivity, as measured through publications and citations. To understand the nature of these apparent conflicting findings, we analyzed bibliometric outcomes of 6873 de novo cardiovascular R01 grants funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) between 1980 and 2011. Our outcomes focus on top-10% articles, meaning articles that were cited more often than 90% of other articles on the same topic, of the same type (eg, article, editorial), and published in the same year. The 6873 grants yielded 62 468 articles, of which 13 507 (or 22%) were top-10% articles. There was a modest association between better grant percentile ranking and number of top-10% articles. However, discrimination was poor (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC], 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.53). Furthermore, better percentile ranking was also associated with higher annual and total inflation-adjusted grant budgets. There was no association between grant percentile ranking and grant outcome as assessed by number of top-10% articles per $million spent. Hence, the seemingly conflicting findings on peer review percentile ranking of grants and subsequent productivity largely reflect differing questions and outcomes. Taken together, these findings raise questions about how best National Institutes of Health (NIH) should use peer review assessments to make complex funding decisions.
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.