ArticleResearch policy2016
Training the Scientific Workforce: Does Funding Mechanism Matter?
Article in Research policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global distribution of research efforts, disease burden, and impact of US public funding withdrawal.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Research productivity and training support for doctoral students in the biological and biomedical sciences.FASEB bioAdvances · 2023Article
- Insights Gained into the Use of Individual Development Plans as a Framework for Mentoring NIH Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program (PREP) Trainees.Journal of chemical education · 2022Article
- Article
- Marriage, Cohabitation, and Sexual Exclusivity: Unpacking the Effect of Marriage.Social forces; a scientific medium of social study and interpretation · 2019Article
- The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers.eLife · 2018Article
- 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A National Institutes of Health (NIH) taskforce recently recommended decreasing the number of graduate students supported on research assistantships, and instead favoring traineeship and fellowship funding mechanisms. Using instrumental variables estimation with survey data collected from U.S. PhD-granting biomedical sciences departments and their newly-minted PhDs, we find that increases in these programs' NIH-funded traineeships and fellowships do significantly increase programs' total graduate enrollments, particularly of female students. However, PhDs who were funded primarily as research assistants are significantly more likely to take research-focused jobs in the U.S. scientific workforce after they graduate, as compared to PhDs who were primarily supported as trainees or fellows. The suggested policy changes thus may have unintended, negative consequences for scientific workforce participation.
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.