Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view

OBJECTIVE To introduce the availability of grant-to-article linkage data associated with National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and to perform a high-level analysis of the publication outputs and impacts associated with those grants. DESIGN Articles were linked to the grants they acknowledge using the grant acknowledgment strings in PubMed using a parsing and matching process as embodied in the NIH Scientific Publication Information Retrieval & Evaluation System system. Additional data from PubMed and citation counts from Scopus were added to the linkage data. The data comprise 2,572,576 records from 1980 to 2009. RESULTS The data show that synergies between NIH institutes are increasing over time; 29% of current articles acknowledge grants from multiple institutes. The median time lag to publication for a new grant is 3 years. Each grant contributes to approximately 1.7 articles per year, averaged over all grant types. Articles acknowledging US Public Health Service (PHS, which includes NIH) funding are cited twice as much as US-authored articles acknowledging no funding source. Articles acknowledging both PHS funding and a non-US government funding source receive on average 40% more citations that those acknowledging PHS funding sources alone. CONCLUSION The US PHS is effective at funding research with a higher-than-average impact. The data are amenable to further and much more detailed analysis.

[1]  Radmila Lyubarova,et al.  The Impact of National Institutes of Health Funding on U.S. Cardiovascular Disease Research , 2009, PloS one.

[2]  B. Cronin,et al.  Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article's paratext , 2006 .

[3]  Richard A Collins,et al.  A systematic evaluation of payback of publicly funded health and health services research in Hong Kong , 2007, BMC Health Services Research.

[4]  L. Butler,et al.  Revisiting bibliometric issues using new empirical data , 2001 .

[5]  G. Lewison,et al.  Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research. , 1999, Rheumatology.

[6]  N. Stanietsky,et al.  The interaction of TIGIT with PVR and PVRL2 inhibits human NK cell cytotoxicity , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  Dangzhi Zhao,et al.  Characteristics and impact of grant-funded research: a case study of the library and information science field , 2010, Scientometrics.

[8]  G. Lewison.  Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact , 1998, Gut.

[9]  D MartínezCaro.  Cardiovascular disease research , 1998 .

[10]  G Lewison,et al.  International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact, and funding. , 2001, Gut.

[11]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  Mapping knowledge domains: Characterizing PNAS , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Mapping the structure and evolution of chemistry research , 2009, Scientometrics.

[13]  L. Butler,et al.  The efficacy of different modes of funding research: perspectives from Australian data on the biological sciences , 1999 .

[14]  Emilio Delgado López-Cózar,et al.  The evolution of research activity in Spain , 2003, Research Policy.

[15]  Francis Narin,et al.  Characterization of the research papers of U.S. medical schools , 1983, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Kevin W. Boyack,et al.  Indicator-assisted evaluation and funding of research: Visualizing the influence of grants on the number and citation counts of research papers , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  P. McAllister,et al.  Relationship between R&D expenditures and publication output for U.S. colleges and universities , 1981 .