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

Published on Feb 14, 2014in Circulation Research15.862
· DOI :10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.114.302656
Narasimhan Danthi7
Estimated H-index: 7
(NIH: National Institutes of Health),
Colin O. Wu47
Estimated H-index: 47
(NIH: National Institutes of Health)
+ 1 AuthorsMichael S. Lauer87
Estimated H-index: 87
(NIH: National Institutes of Health)
Rationale:Funding decisions for cardiovascular R01 grant applications at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) largely hinge on percentile rankings. It is not known whether this approach enables the highest impact science. Objective:Our aim was to conduct an observational analysis of percentile rankings and bibliometric outcomes for a contemporary set of funded NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants. Methods and Results:We identified 1492 investigator-initiated de novo R01 grant applications that were funded between 2001 and 2008 and followed their progress for linked publications and citations to those publications. Our coprimary end points were citations received per million dollars of funding, citations obtained <2 years of publication, and 2-year citations for each grant’s maximally cited paper. In 7654 grant-years of funding that generated $3004 million of total National Institutes of Health awards, the portfolio yielded 16 793 publications that appeared between 2001 and 2012 (median per gra...
Figures & Tables
  • References (16)
  • Citations (47)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
40 Citations
2 Authors (Danielle Li, Leila Agha)
68 Citations
73 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
Scientific research probes the deepest mysteries of the universe and of living things, and it creates applications and technologies that benefit humanity and create wealth. This “Beauty and Benefits of Science” is the theme of this 2013 AAAS Annual Meeting. The subject of my address is a
25 CitationsSource
I have been asked to write a description of the scientific review processes of investigator programs in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Division of Intramural Research (DIR), especially with regard to evaluating the scientific productivity and impact. The DIR is composed of a broad group of investigators working on basic structural biology and cell biology to clinical research within the Clinical Center on the Bethesda Campus and regional hospitals. Investigators are review...
2 CitationsSource
#1Jean-Michel Fortin (U of O: University of Ottawa)H-Index: 2
#2David J. Currie (U of O: University of Ottawa)H-Index: 41
Agencies that fund scientific research must choose: is it more effective to give large grants to a few elite researchers, or small grants to many researchers? Large grants would be more effective only if scientific impact increases as an accelerating function of grant size. Here, we examine the scientific impact of individual university-based researchers in three disciplines funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). We considered four indices of scientifi...
86 CitationsSource
![Figure][1] CREDIT: TOM KOCHEL This Editorial coincides with the release of the San Francisco declaration on research Assessment (DORA), the outcome of a gathering of concerned scientists at the December 2012 meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology.[*][2] To correct distortions in the evaluation of scientific research, DORA aims to stop the use of the "journal impact factor" in judging an individual scientist's work. The Declaration states that the impact factor must not be used as "a ...
188 CitationsSource
#1James S. Langer (KITP: Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics)H-Index: 47
![Figure][1] CREDIT: J. S. LANGER These should be wonderful times for physicists. Advances in experimental and computational capabilities have opened windows to research areas that previously had seemed out of our reach. We now can see in exquisite detail what atoms are doing inside complex materials, and we have the tools to test predictive theories of what's happening. We have been able do this in ways that are interesting not just to physicists but also to engineers, biologists, and many othe...
14 CitationsSource
#1Zorina S. Galis (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 47
#2W. Keith Hoots (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 26
Last. Michael S. Lauer (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 87
view all 4 authors...
In his widely acclaimed book “The Difference,”1 Scott Page, a Professor at the University of Michigan, described a computer modeling experiment designed to test the “Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem.” The theorem postulates that “collections of diverse individuals outperform collections of more individually capable individuals.”1 The computer model showed that diversity enhanced the ability to solve problems or make accurate predictions,2 but only when 4 conditions were met: (1) the problems wer...
8 CitationsSource
#1David L. Kaplan (Case Western Reserve University)H-Index: 149
4 CitationsSource
#1Brian A. Jacob (UM: University of Michigan)H-Index: 37
#2Lars Lefgren (BYU: Brigham Young University)H-Index: 19
In this paper, we estimate the impact of receiving an NIH grant on subsequent publications and citations. Our sample consists of all applications (unsuccessful as well as successful) to the NIH from 1980 to 2000 for postdoctoral training grants (F32s) and standard research grants (R01s). Both OLS and regression discontinuity estimates show that receipt of either an NIH postdoctoral fellowship or research grant leads to about one additional publication over the next five years. The estimates repr...
170 CitationsSource
#1John P. A. Ioannidis (Stanford University)H-Index: 151
John P. A. Ioannidis proposes ways to save scientists from spending all their time writing grants.
80 CitationsSource
#1Nicholas GravesH-Index: 40
#2Adrian G. BarnettH-Index: 53
Last. Philip ClarkeH-Index: 35
view all 3 authors...
Objective To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding. Design Retrospective analysis. Setting Grant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Participants Panel members’ scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009. Main outcome measures The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members’ scores, an...
50 CitationsSource
Cited By47
#1Travis Hoppe (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 6
#2Aviva Litovitz (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 1
Last. George M. Santangelo (NIH: National Institutes of Health)H-Index: 3
view all 11 authors...
Despite efforts to promote diversity in the biomedical workforce, there remains a lower rate of funding of National Institutes of Health R01 applications submitted by African-American/black (AA/B) scientists relative to white scientists. To identify underlying causes of this funding gap, we analyzed six stages of the application process from 2011 to 2015 and found that disparate outcomes arise at three of the six: decision to discuss, impact score assignment, and a previously unstudied stage, to...
13 CitationsSource
Abstract This paper provides an account of mid-level models which calibrate highly theoretical agent-based models of scientific communities by incorporating empirical information from real-world systems. As a result, these models more closely correspond with real-world communities, and are better suited for informing policy decisions than extant how-possibly models. I provide an exemplar of a mid-level model of science funding allocation that incorporates bibliometric data from scientific public...
1 CitationsSource
#1Samy A. Azer (KSU: King Saud University)H-Index: 21
#2Sarah Azer (Southmead Hospital)H-Index: 4
Introduction Citation counts of articles have been used to measure scientific outcomes and assess suitability for grant applications. However, citation counts are not without limitations. With the rise of social media, altmetric scores may provide an alternative assessment tool. Objectives The aims of the study were to assess the characteristics of highly cited articles in medical professionalism and their altmetric scores. Methods The Web of Science was searched for top-cited articles in medica...
2 CitationsSource
#1Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo (University of Valencia)H-Index: 15
#2Beatriz Tarazona-Alvarez (University of Valencia)H-Index: 1
Last. Antonio Vidal-Infer (University of Valencia)H-Index: 9
view all 5 authors...
BACKGROUND: Implant dentistry is subject to major economic pressures as a result of the growth in the manufacturing and commercialization of dental implants. PURPOSE: To examine research funding in implant dentistry by means of a bibliometric analysis of articles indexed in Web of Science (WoS) published during the period 2008-2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was conducted applying the truncated term "implant*" in the WoS dentistry area. Only items labeled as "article" or "review" were se...
#1Laura P. Forsythe (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute)H-Index: 13
#2Lori Frank (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute)H-Index: 28
Last. Suzanne Schrandt (Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute)H-Index: 3
view all 8 authors...
Abstract Objective The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) uses a unique approach to Merit Review that includes patients and stakeholders as reviewers with scientists, and includes unique review criteria (patient-centeredness and active engagement of end users in the research). This study assessed the extent to which different reviewer types influence review scores and funding outcomes, the emphasis placed on technical merit compared to other criteria by a multistakeholder panel...
3 CitationsSource
Peer review is used commonly across science as a tool to evaluate the merit and potential impact of research projects and make funding recommendations. While potential impact is likely difficult to assess ex-ante, there have been relatively few attempts made to get a sense of the predictive accuracy of review decisions using impact measures of the results of the completed projects. Although many outputs, and thus potential measures of impact, exist for research projects, the overwhelming majorit...
#1Adrian G. Barnett (QUT: Queensland University of Technology)H-Index: 53
#2Scott R. GlissonH-Index: 5
Last. Stephen A. GalloH-Index: 20
view all 3 authors...
Background : Decisions about which applications to fund are generally based on the mean scores of a panel of peer reviewers. As well as the mean, a large disagreement between peer reviewers may also be worth considering, as it may indicate a high-risk application with a high return. Methods : We examined the peer reviewers' scores for 227 funded applications submitted to the American Institute of Biological Sciences between 1999 and 2006. We examined the mean score and two measures of reviewer d...
#1Adishesh K. Narahari (University of Virginia Health System)H-Index: 5
#2James H. Mehaffey (University of Virginia Health System)H-Index: 12
Last. Gorav Ailawadi (University of Virginia Health System)H-Index: 44
view all 12 authors...
Background Obtaining National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding over the last 10 years has become increasingly difficult due to a decrease in the number of research grants funded and an increase in the number of NIH applications. Study Design National Institutes of Health funding amounts and success rates were compared for all disciplines using data from NIH, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), and Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Next, all NIH grants (2006 to 2016) ...
6 CitationsSource