Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants
Tracking publication outcomes of National Institutes of Health grants
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.02.015
复制
发表时间：
2005-06-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Marcus, SC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Druss, BG;Marcus, SC
目得：同行审查文献是主要媒介，科学界通过这些文献评价并向更广泛的科学界传播受资助研究的结果。本研究探讨何时以及如何资助美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）导致publications.METHODS：数据在1996年（n = 18 211）资助的所有赞助商发起的R01赠款金提取NIH的计算机检索信息科学项目网站。这些数据与使用手稿中报告的NIH资助编号在每次资助完成后4年内发表的所有MEDLINE文章相关联。分析检查了所有链接出版物和核心期刊出版物的数量、时间和相关性（179种期刊，包括前100名科学信息研究所或120种医学文摘期刊）。（95%置信区间[CI]：7.47至7.69）和1.61篇核心期刊发表文章（95% CI：1.56至1.65）。在大学之间的多变量分析中，核心期刊上的更多手稿和出版物被认为是竞争性的更新与新的赠款，由基础科学研究部门审查的项目，全职教授，以及研究生课程被美国新闻和世界报道排名前十的大学。然而，所有的补助金，研究人员，和机构阶层产生了大量的出版物，每grant.CONCLUSIONS：研究结果支持的可行性和潜在的效用的努力，研究补助资金和研究结果之间的联系，早期的一步，资助的科学导致改善临床和公共卫生的过程。(c)2005年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: The peer-review literature is the primary medium through which the findings of funded research are evaluated by and disseminated to the broader scientific community. This study examines when and how grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) lead to publications.METHODS: Data on all investigator-initiated R01 grants funded during 1996 (n = 18 211) were extracted from the NIH's Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects Web site. These data were linked with all MEDLINE articles published during and up through 4 years after completion of each grant using NIH grant numbers reported in the manuscript. Analyses examined the number, timing, and correlates of all linked publications and publications in core journals (179 journals, comprising the top 100 Institute for Scientific Information or 120 Abridged Index Medicus journals).RESULTS: On average, each grant produced 7.6 MEDLINE manuscripts (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.47 to 7.69) and 1.61 publications in a core journal (95% CI: 1.56 to 1.65). In multivariable analyses among universities, more manuscripts and publications in core journals were seen for competing renewals versus new grants, for projects reviewed by basic science study sections, for full professors, and for universities with graduate programs ranked in the top 10 by US News and World Report. However, all grant, investigator, and institutional strata produced substantial numbers of publications per grant.CONCLUSIONS: The findings support the feasibility and potential utility of efforts to study the link between grant funding and research findings, an early step in the process by which funded science leads to improved clinical and public health. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.