ArticlePeerJ2016
Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research.
Article in PeerJ, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global Research Trends and Insights on AI Usage in Tuberculosis: Bibliometric Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Competency in invasion science: addressing stagnation challenges by promoting innovation and creative thinking.Environmental management · 2024Article
- Practical Incorporation of Stakeholder-Informed Ethics into Research Funding Decisions.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2024Article
- 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
- The increasing importance of fellowships and career development awards in the careers of early-stage biomedical academic researchers.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers.eLife · 2018Article
- A new paradigm for the scientific enterprise: nurturing the ecosystem.F1000Research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability of the United States to most efficiently make breakthroughs on the biology, diagnosis and treatment of human diseases requires that physicians and scientists in each state have equal access to federal research grants and grant dollars. However, despite legislative and administrative efforts to ensure equal access, the majority of funding for biomedical research is concentrated in a minority of states. To gain insight into the causes of such disparity, funding metrics were examined for all NIH research project grants (RPGs) from 2004 to 2013. State-by-state differences in per application success rates, per investigator funding rates, and average award size each contributed significantly to vast disparities (greater than 100-fold range) in per capita RPG funding to individual states. To the extent tested, there was no significant association overall between scientific productivity and per capita funding, suggesting that the unbalanced allocation of funding is unrelated to the quality of scientists in each state. These findings reveal key sources of bias in, and new insight into the accuracy of, the funding process. They also support evidence-based recommendations for how the NIH could better utilize the scientific talent and capacity that is present throughout the United States.
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.