Literature DB >> 26033238

Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants.

J M Doyle1, K Quinn1, Y A Bodenstein1, C O Wu2, N Danthi3, M S Lauer4.   

Abstract

Previous reports from National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have suggested that peer review scores of funded grants bear no association with grant citation impact and productivity. This lack of association, if true, may be particularly concerning during times of increasing competition for increasingly limited funds. We analyzed the citation impact and productivity for 1755 de novo investigator-initiated R01 grants funded for at least 2 years by National Institute of Mental Health between 2000 and 2009. Consistent with previous reports, we found no association between grant percentile ranking and subsequent productivity and citation impact, even after accounting for subject categories, years of publication, duration and amounts of funding, as well as a number of investigator-specific measures. Prior investigator funding and academic productivity were moderately strong predictors of grant citation impact.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26033238      PMCID: PMC5526589          DOI: 10.1038/mp.2015.71

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Psychiatry        ISSN: 1359-4184            Impact factor:   15.992


  8 in total

1.  Percentile ranking and citation impact of a large cohort of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-funded cardiovascular R01 grants.

Authors:  Narasimhan Danthi; Colin O Wu; Peibei Shi; Michael Lauer
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 17.367

2.  Science policy: Well-funded investigators should receive extra scrutiny.

Authors:  Jeremy M Berg
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  How good is research really? Measuring the citation impact of publications with percentiles increases correct assessments and fair comparisons.

Authors:  Lutz Bornmann; Werner Marx
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2012-02-12       Impact factor: 8.807

4.  Use of hundreds of electrocardiographic biomarkers for prediction of mortality in postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative.

Authors:  Eiran Z Gorodeski; Hemant Ishwaran; Udaya B Kogalur; Eugene H Blackstone; Eileen Hsich; Zhu-Ming Zhang; Mara Z Vitolins; Joann E Manson; J David Curb; Lisa W Martin; Ronald J Prineas; Michael S Lauer
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2011-08-23

5.  The Impact of Research Grant Funding on Scientific Productivity.

Authors:  Brian A Jacob; Lars Lefgren
Journal:  J Public Econ       Date:  2011-10-01

6.  Prior publication productivity, grant percentile ranking, and topic-normalized citation impact of NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants.

Authors:  Jonathan R Kaltman; Frank J Evans; Narasimhan S Danthi; Colin O Wu; Donna M DiMichele; Michael S Lauer
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 17.367

Review 7.  Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications.

Authors:  V Demicheli; C Di Pietrantonj
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-04-18

8.  The validation of peer review through research impact measures and the implications for funding strategies.

Authors:  Stephen A Gallo; Afton S Carpenter; David Irwin; Caitlin D McPartland; Joseph Travis; Sofie Reynders; Lisa A Thompson; Scott R Glisson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total
  14 in total

1.  Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions.

Authors:  Wayne P Wahls
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research.

Authors:  Michael Levitt; Jonathan M Levitt
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Opinion: The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH.

Authors:  Michael Lauer; Lawrence Tabak; Francis Collins
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Authors:  Michael S Lauer; Narasimhan S Danthi; Jonathan Kaltman; Colin Wu
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2015-06-18       Impact factor: 17.367

5.  Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research.

Authors:  Wayne P Wahls
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.984

6.  How should novelty be valued in science?

Authors:  Barak A Cohen
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 7.  What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences?

Authors:  Susan Guthrie; Ioana Ghiga; Steven Wooding
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2017-08-07

8.  The argument for diversifying the NIH grant portfolio.

Authors:  Mark Peifer
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.138

Review 9.  Peer review of health research funding proposals: A systematic map and systematic review of innovations for effectiveness and efficiency.

Authors:  Jonathan Shepherd; Geoff K Frampton; Karen Pickett; Jeremy C Wyatt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Do funding applications where peer reviewers disagree have higher citations? A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Adrian G Barnett; Scott R Glisson; Stephen Gallo
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-07-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.