ArticleScience advances2022
The ripple effects of funding on researchers and output.
Article in Science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering Global Trends in Surgical Oncology Trials: Applying Natural Language Processing to ClinicalTrials.gov.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Targeted termination of scientific grants and minoritised researcher status in a national survey: a cross sectional analysis.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
- The impact of Susan G. Komen-funded research on approved drugs for breast cancer treatment.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Resilience of science after austerity.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Comparing academic productivity and Instagram presence in oral and maxillofacial surgery training programs.Oral and maxillofacial surgery · 2025Article
- Priced out of belonging? Insufficient concessions on membership fees across international societies in ecology and evolution.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Research productivity and gender of research award recipients in international ophthalmology societies.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2024Observational
- Article
- Labor advantages drive the greater productivity of faculty at elite universities.Science advances · 2022Article
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
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 include PIs. While funders focus on research output from projects, they would be well advised to consider how funding ripples through the wide range of people, including trainees and staff, employed on projects.
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.