The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 114, Issue 45, 2017, Pages 11801-11803

  Lauer, Michael ^a   Tabak, Lawrence ^a   Collins, Francis ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AWARDS AND PRIZES; BUDGET; CAREER PLANNING; FUNDING; HUMAN; INDEPENDENCE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; NOTE; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIST; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; PERSONNEL; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85033476062     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1716941114     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Kimble J, et al. (2015) Strategies from UW-Madison for rescuing biomedical research in the US. Elife 4:e09305.
2. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H (2014) Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:5773–5777.
3. Blau DM, Weinberg BA (2017) Why the US science and engineering workforce is aging rapidly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:3879–3884.
4. Charette MF, et al. (2016) Shifting demographics among research project grant awardees at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). PLoS One 11:e0168511.
5. Levitt M, Levitt JM (2017) Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:6498–6503.
6. Katz Y, Matter U (2017) On the biomedical elite: Inequality and stasis in scientific knowledge production. Available at nrs.harvard.edu/ urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33373356. Accessed September 27, 2017.
7. Fortin JM, Currie DJ (2013) Big science vs. little science: How scientific impact scales with funding. PLoS One 8:e65263.
8. Mongeon P, Brodeur C, Beaudry C, Larivière V (2016) Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns. Res Eval 25:396–404.
9. Ioannidis JP, Khoury MJ (2014) Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward. JAMA 312:483–484.
10. Eblen MK, Wagner RM, RoyChowdhury D, Patel KC, Pearson K (2016) How criterion scores predict the overall impact score and funding outcomes for National Institutes of Health peer-reviewed applications. PLoS One 11:e0155060.
11. Sinatra R, Wang D, Deville P, Song C, Barabási AL (2016) Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science 354:aaf5239.
12. Clauset A, Larremore DB, Sinatra R (2017) Data-driven predictions in the science of science. Science 355:477–480.
13. Doyle JM, et al. (2015) Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants. Mol Psychiatry 20:1030–1036.
14. Fang FC, Bowen A, Casadevall A (2016) NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. Elife 5:e13323.