Publication rates from biomedical and behavioral and social science R01s funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Prior research has shown a serious lack of research transparency resulting from the failure to publish study results in a timely manner. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has increased its use of publication rate and time to publication as metrics for grant productivity. In this study, we analyze the publications associated with all R01 and U01 grants funded from 2008 through 2014, providing sufficient time for these grants to publish their findings, and identify predictors of time to publication based on a number of variables, including if a grant was coded as a behavioral and social sciences research (BSSR) grant or not. Overall, 2.4% of the 27,016 R01 and U01 grants did not have a publication associated with the grant within 60 months of the project start date, and this rate of zero publications was higher for BSSR grants (4.6%) than for non-BSSR grants (1.9%). Mean time in months to first publication was 15.2 months, longer for BSSR grants (22.4 months) than non-BSSR grants (13.6 months). Survival curves showed a more rapid reduction of risk to publish from non-BSSR vs BSSR grants. Cox regression models showed that human research (vs. animal, neither, or both) and clinical trials research (vs. not) are the strongest predictors of time to publication and failure to publish, but even after accounting for these and other predictors, BSSR grants continued to show longer times to first publication and greater risk of no publications than non-BSSR grants. These findings indicate that even with liberal criteria for publication (any publication associated with a grant), a small percentage of R01 and U01 grantees fail to publish in a timely manner, and that a number of factors, including human research, clinical trial research, child research, not being an early stage investigator, and conducting behavioral and social sciences research increase the risk of time to first publication.

Importance of HIV/AIDS-Related Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the NIH and Beyond.

OPPORTUNITY STATEMENT: Key topics discussed in this article were previously presented at the Center for AIDS Research Social and Behavioral Sciences Network's 12th National Scientific Meeting in August 2018. This article highlights the importance of behavioral and social sciences research (BSSR) in addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic. APPROACH: NIH has made significant investments in HIV/AIDS-related BSSR. These investments support the development of effective, evidence-based sociobehavioral HIV prevention, treatment, and care strategies. DISCUSSION: The implementation and use of evidence-based sociobehavioral approaches in combination with biomedical strategies provide the availability of multiple tools to end the HIV epidemic in the United Sates and the pandemic globally. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: BSSR-related opportunities to mitigate the persistent challenges HIV/AIDS presents include, but are not limited to, further incorporating BSSR into HIV vaccine and cure research; improving interventions that address stigma and the social determinants of health that perpetuate HIV transmission within key populations; and conducting implementation science research that shapes national and international policies impacting HIV prevention, treatment, and care.

Patrons of the revolution. Ideals and institutions in postwar behavioral science.

This essay argues that shifts in patronage for the postwar behavioral and social sciences were linked intimately to both intellectual and institutional changes. This broad argument comprises two subarguments: first, that there were in fact two distinct, successive patronage systems for postwar social science--not one, as is commonly assumed; and, second, that the first postwar patronage system played a major role in enabling a series of behavioral revolutions and interdisciplinary syntheses across the social sciences, while the second postwar patronage system encouraged the development of specialized concepts, techniques, and technologies within the disciplines. The essay also suggests that the widespread concern among social scientists in the 1970s and 1980s that their fields were fragmenting was at least in part an unintended consequence of the rise of the second system.