↓ Skip to main content

Impact of research investment on scientific productivity of junior researchers

Overview of attention for article published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Impact of research investment on scientific productivity of junior researchers
Published in
Translational Behavioral Medicine, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13142-015-0361-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Forough Farrokhyar, Daniela Bianco, Dyda Dao, Michelle Ghert, Nicole Andruszkiewicz, Jonathan Sussman, Jeffrey S. Ginsberg

Abstract

There is a demand for providing evidence on the effectiveness of research investments on the promotion of novice researchers' scientific productivity and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. We used a mixed method approach to evaluate the funding effect of the New Investigator Fund (NIF) by comparing scientific productivity between award recipients and non-recipients. We reviewed NIF grant applications submitted from 2004 to 2013. Scientific productivity was assessed by confirming the publication of the NIF-submitted application. Online databases were searched, independently and in duplicate, to locate the publications. Applicants' perceptions and experiences were collected through a short survey and categorized into specified themes. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Of 296 applicants, 163 (55 %) were awarded. Gender, affiliation, and field of expertise did not affect funding decisions. More physicians with graduate education (32.0 %) and applicants with a doctorate degree (21.5 %) were awarded than applicants without postgraduate education (9.8 %). Basic science research (28.8 %), randomized controlled trials (24.5 %), and feasibility/pilot trials (13.3 %) were awarded more than observational designs (p   <  0.001). Adjusting for applicants and application factors, awardees published the NIF application threefold more than non-awardees (OR = 3.4, 95 %, CI = 1.9, 5.9). The survey response rate was 90.5 %, and only 58 % commented on their perceptions, successes, and challenges of the submission process. These findings suggest that research investments as small as seed funding are effective for scientific productivity and professional growth of novice investigators and production of research with new initiatives and innovations. Further efforts are recommended to enhance the support of small grant funding programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 67 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 21%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Engineering 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 26 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 November 2015.
All research outputs
#6,718,481
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#449
of 990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,205
of 386,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Translational Behavioral Medicine
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.