Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42018415›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Bipartisan-cited science is rare, unevenly distributed, and disproportionately influential.

Alexander C Furnas, Dashun Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Bipartisan-cited science is rare, unevenly distributed, and disproportionately influential.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alexander C FurnasManagement and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208.ORCID 0000-0001-8006-7798
Dashun WangManagement and Organizations, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208.ORCID 0000-0002-7054-2206

Funding

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (APSF) G-2019-12485National Science Foundation (NSF) 2404035Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF) NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study offers a systematic analysis of scientific papers cited in both Republican and Democratic policy documents. Using data from Overton and Dimensions, we examine congressional reports, hearings, and think tank publications. We find that bipartisan citations, while rare, highlight papers of exceptional scientific influence. Policy documents citing these papers also receive more citations, amplifying their policy impact. Yet, bipartisan-cited science is unevenly distributed-concentrated in monetary policy and healthcare, but notably absent in climate, inequality, and race and gender. These results show that bipartisan engagement, though limited, marks a uniquely influential core of science in both research and policy.

Indexed as

PoliticsScienceHumansPolicy Makingbipartisan citationspolitical polarizationscience and policymakingscience of science

Identifiers

PMID42018415
PMCPMC13123795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.