↓ Skip to main content

Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research

Overview of attention for article published in PeerJ, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
63 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research
Published in
PeerJ, April 2016
DOI 10.7717/peerj.1917
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wayne P. Wahls

Abstract

The ability of the United States to most efficiently make breakthroughs on the biology, diagnosis and treatment of human diseases requires that physicians and scientists in each state have equal access to federal research grants and grant dollars. However, despite legislative and administrative efforts to ensure equal access, the majority of funding for biomedical research is concentrated in a minority of states. To gain insight into the causes of such disparity, funding metrics were examined for all NIH research project grants (RPGs) from 2004 to 2013. State-by-state differences in per application success rates, per investigator funding rates, and average award size each contributed significantly to vast disparities (greater than 100-fold range) in per capita RPG funding to individual states. To the extent tested, there was no significant association overall between scientific productivity and per capita funding, suggesting that the unbalanced allocation of funding is unrelated to the quality of scientists in each state. These findings reveal key sources of bias in, and new insight into the accuracy of, the funding process. They also support evidence-based recommendations for how the NIH could better utilize the scientific talent and capacity that is present throughout the United States.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Librarian 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Social Sciences 6 17%
Engineering 4 11%
Psychology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 17 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,165,179
of 25,726,194 outputs
Outputs from PeerJ
#1,173
of 15,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,776
of 317,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PeerJ
#33
of 336 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,726,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 317,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 336 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.