ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2026
National-, institutional-, and individual-level determinants of pharmacology and pharmacy research excellence: an analysis of stanford-elsevier lists of the top 2% scholars (2017-2023).
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
Research excellence in pharmacology and pharmacy remains insufficiently studied compared with broader analyses of productivity, despite its centrality to advancing drug discovery and health outcomes. This study investigated the multilevel determinants of pharmacology and pharmacy research excellence, defined by membership in the Stanford-Elsevier Top 2% Scientists Lists (SEL). We analyzed 56,358 records in SELs between 2017 and 2023 using a multilevel socio-ecological model. Independent variables spanned national determinants (e.g., health system capacity, human development, gender inequality, R&D investment), institutional factors (global and field-specific rankings), and individual characteristics (gender and academic age). Core bibliometric outcomes included citation counts excluding self-citations, modified H-index, and composite scores. Excellence was disproportionately concentrated in high-income countries and a limited number of elite institutions, although contributions from middle-income countries expanded over time. National R&D investment, Universal Health Coverage, and Human Development Index values consistently predicted higher bibliometric outcomes, while gender inequality was negatively associated with excellence. Disease burdens mirrored these inequities: conditions common in high-income settings (e.g., cancers, COPD) correlated positively with excellence, whereas major global burdens (e.g., HIV/AIDS, diabetes) correlated negatively. Institutional concentration illustrated the Matthew effect, with the top 20 institutions accounting for over one-tenth of global excellence. At the individual level, female scholars remained underrepresented (16.8% in career-long, 25.0% in single-year lists) and showed lower bibliometric performance and younger academic ages than men. Academic age emerged as the strongest positive predictor of research impact, with consistent gains across both datasets. Pharmacology and pharmacy research excellence is conditioned by systemic disparities in resources, prestige, and representation. Policy interventions must target these entrenched capacity-based advantages by strengthening research capacity in underrepresented countries and institutions and implementing frameworks for gender-equitable career progression.
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.