Scientific Output Scales with Resources. A Comparison of US and European Universities
A recent study finds a strong correlation between university revenues and their volume of publications and (field-normalized) citations. These results demonstrate empirically that international rankings are by and large richness measures and, therefore, can be interpreted only by introducing a measure of resources.
Assessing the Impact of a Research Funder's Recommendation to Consider Core Outcome Sets
Background Core outcome sets (COS) have the potential to reduce waste in research by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS by clinical trialists. Without uptake, the continued development of COS that are not implemented may add to waste in research. Funders of clinical trials have the potential to have an impact on COS uptake by recommending their use to those applying for funding. The aim of our study was to assess the extent to which applicants followed the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme's recommendation to search for a COS to include in their clinical trial. Methods and findings We examined the outcomes section and detailed project descriptions of all 95 researcher-led primary research applications submitted to the NIHR HTA between January 2012, when the recommendation to search for a COS was included in the guidance for applicants, and December 2015 for evidence that a search for a COS had taken place and rationale for outcome choice in the absence of COS. A survey of applicants was conducted to further explore their use of COS and choice of outcomes with a response rate of 49%. Nine out of 95 applicants (10%) stated in their application that they had searched the COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative database for a COS and another nine referred to searching for a COS using another method, e.g. a review of the literature. Of the 77 (81%) applicants that did not mention COMET or COS in their application, eight stated in the survey that they had searched the COMET database and ten carried out a search using another method. Some applicants who did not search for a COS gave reasons for their choice of outcomes including taking advice from patients and the public and choosing outcomes used in previous trials. Conclusion A funding body can have an impact on COS uptake by encouraging trialists to search for a COS. Funders could take further steps by putting processes in place to prompt applicants to be explicit about searching for COS in their application and notifying the funding board if a search has not taken place. The sources of information used by trialists to make decisions about outcomes in the absence of COS may suggest methods of dissemination for COS.
Brexit Uncertainty Sees UK Share of EU Research Funding Drop from 16% to 11%
The UK's share of EU research funding has fallen dramatically because of Brexit uncertainty, with the country's take home from the EU Horizon 2020 programme cut by almost €500 million since 2015, according an analysis by the Royal Society.
Many of the Deadliest Cancers Receive the Least Amount of Research Funding
Many of the deadliest or most common cancers get the least amount of nonprofit research funding, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study that examined cancer research funding from nonprofit organizations.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will soon invite applications for open source software projects that are essential to biomedical research. Applicants can request funding between $50k and $250k for one year.
What Words Are Worth: National Science Foundation Grant Abstracts Indicate Award Funding
Can word patterns from grant abstracts predict National Science Foundation (NSF) funding? The data describe a clear relationship between word patterns and funding magnitude: Grant abstracts that are longer than the average abstract, contain fewer common words, and are written with more verbal certainty receive more money.
The National Institutes of Health uses small groups of scientists to judge the quality of the grant proposals that they receive, and these quality judgments form the basis of its funding decisions. In order for this system to fund the best science, the subject experts must, at a minimum, agree as to what counts as a “quality”proposal. We investigated the degree of agreement by leveraging data from a recent experiment with 412 scientists.
An HIV Treatment Cost Taxpayers Millions. The Government Patented It. But a Pharma Giant Is Making Billions.
The extraordinary standoff between the CDC and a drug company over patent rights raises a big question for the Trump administration: How aggressively should the government attempt to enforce its patents against an industry partner?
Horizon Europe Will Connect the Public to European Science - Carlos Moedas
The next European science and research funding programme, known as Horizon Europe, is designed to connect people with the achievements financed by their tax money, and to fix problems with innovation funding, according to Carlos Moedas, the European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation.