The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science
Every year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Royal Society
2021-08-01
|
| Series: | Royal Society Open Science |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210072 |
| _version_ | 1818692859541323776 |
|---|---|
| author | Kishore Vasan Jevin D. West |
| author_facet | Kishore Vasan Jevin D. West |
| author_sort | Kishore Vasan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Every year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded projects. As an initial effort towards this, we examine the co-funding network, where a funder represents a node and an edge signifies collaboration. Our core data include all papers that cite and receive citations by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, a prominent clinical review journal. We find that 65% of clinical papers have multiple funders and discover communities of funders that are formed by national boundaries and funding objectives. To quantify success in funding, we use a g-index metric that indicates efficiency of funders in supporting clinically relevant research. After controlling for authorship, we find that funders generally achieve higher success when collaborating than when solo-funding. We also find that as a funder, seeking multiple, direct connections with various disconnected funders may be more beneficial than being part of a densely interconnected network of co-funders. The results of this paper indicate that collaborations can potentially accelerate innovation, not only among authors but also funders. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T13:04:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-276f0e5fc185416db148fcd64f9db92d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2054-5703 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T13:04:29Z |
| publishDate | 2021-08-01 |
| publisher | The Royal Society |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Royal Society Open Science |
| spelling | doaj.art-276f0e5fc185416db148fcd64f9db92d2022-12-21T21:47:17ZengThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society Open Science2054-57032021-08-018810.1098/rsos.210072The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical scienceKishore Vasan0Jevin D. West1Network Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USAInformation School, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USAEvery year the National Institutes of Health allocates $10.7 billion (one-third of its funds) for clinical science research while the pharmaceutical companies spend $52.9 billion (90% of its annual budget). However, we know little about funder collaborations and the impact of collaboratively funded projects. As an initial effort towards this, we examine the co-funding network, where a funder represents a node and an edge signifies collaboration. Our core data include all papers that cite and receive citations by the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, a prominent clinical review journal. We find that 65% of clinical papers have multiple funders and discover communities of funders that are formed by national boundaries and funding objectives. To quantify success in funding, we use a g-index metric that indicates efficiency of funders in supporting clinically relevant research. After controlling for authorship, we find that funders generally achieve higher success when collaborating than when solo-funding. We also find that as a funder, seeking multiple, direct connections with various disconnected funders may be more beneficial than being part of a densely interconnected network of co-funders. The results of this paper indicate that collaborations can potentially accelerate innovation, not only among authors but also funders.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210072science of fundingscience of successcollaborative fundingpopulation healthscience of science |
| spellingShingle | Kishore Vasan Jevin D. West The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science Royal Society Open Science science of funding science of success collaborative funding population health science of science |
| title | The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science |
| title_full | The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science |
| title_fullStr | The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science |
| title_full_unstemmed | The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science |
| title_short | The hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science |
| title_sort | hidden influence of communities in collaborative funding of clinical science |
| topic | science of funding science of success collaborative funding population health science of science |
| url | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.210072 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kishorevasan thehiddeninfluenceofcommunitiesincollaborativefundingofclinicalscience AT jevindwest thehiddeninfluenceofcommunitiesincollaborativefundingofclinicalscience AT kishorevasan hiddeninfluenceofcommunitiesincollaborativefundingofclinicalscience AT jevindwest hiddeninfluenceofcommunitiesincollaborativefundingofclinicalscience |