ArticlePloS one2022
Association of publication record and independent NIH funding.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual Research Behaviors and Research Funding Acquisition Across Fields and Career Periods: Regression Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Growing implementation scientists: NHLBI's K12 programs in heart, lung, blood, and sleep research.Implementation science communications · 2026Article
- Gendered male and high-income country authors dominate publication at a One Health research organization.PloS one · 2026Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPublications may be a modifiable factor toward research project grant (RPG) funding decisions, the objective was to determine the association of publication record with later RPG receipt.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of recipients of K01, K08, or K23 US career development awards (CDAs) starting from 2000-2015. Exposures were CDA awardees' first-, middle-, and last-author publication counts, and the quartile of awardees' highest and mean publication impact factors. The independent association of each exposure with time to RPG (R01 or equivalent) was determined using a Cox model, after adjustment for CDA type, awardee change in institution, and institutional CDA count. The proportion of CDA recipients with later independent funding was also determined by publication count.
resultsAmong 6744 CDA awardees, 3943 obtained an RPG. The median time to RPG was 5.6 years (interquartile range 4.2-7.5). The number of first-authorships was associated with a shorter time to RPG (1-4 versus 0: hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.36; 5-9: 1.59, 95% CI 1.40-1.79; 10-24: 1.78, 95% CI 1.54-2.07; 25+: 2.40, 95% CI 1.61-3.56). Last-authorships were associated with a shorter time to RPG (1-4 versus 0: HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.83-2.16; 5-9: 2.72, 95% CI 2.45-3.03; 10-24: 3.17, 95% CI 2.78-3.62; 25+: 3.12, 95% CI 2.17-4.50). Higher maximum impact factor was associated with a shorter time to RPG (Q2 versus lowest: HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.46; Q3: 1.45, 95% CI 1.24-1.70; Q4: 1.67, 95% CI 1.39-2.02). Mean impact factor and middle-authorships were not associated with time to RPG. Among 687 CDAs with zero associated first- or last-authorships, 158 (23%) achieved later RPG funding. Among those with at least 10 total first- or last-authorships, 1288/1554 (83%) obtained a later RPG.
conclusionsA higher number and impact of publications was associated with later independent funding.
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.