NIH funding and journal selection: trends in dermatology publication models across tiers from 2021 to 2023.

This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Cancer research funding in South Asia.

BACKGROUND: The rising burden of cancer significantly influences the global economy and healthcare systems. While local and contextual cancer research is crucial, it is often limited by the availability of funds. In South Asia, with 1.7 million new cancer cases and 1.1 million deaths due to cancer in 2020, understanding cancer research funding trends is pivotal. METHODS: We reviewed funded cancer studies conducted between January 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2022, using ClinicalTrials.gov, International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) Database, NIH World RePORT, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We included funded studies related to all cancer types, conducted in South Asian countries, namely Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. RESULTS: We identified 6561 funded cancer studies from South Asia between 2003 and 2022, increasing from 400 studies in 2003-2007 to 3909 studies in 2018-2022. India had the highest number of funded cancer studies, while Afghanistan, Bhutan, and the Maldives had minimal or no funded cancer research output. Interventional studies (67.3%) were the most common study type funded. The most common cancer sites funded were breast (17.8%), lung (9.9%), oropharyngeal (6.2%), and cervical (5.0%) cancers. On the WHO ICTRP, international funding agencies contributed to a majority of studies (57.5%), except in India where local funding agencies (58.2%) funded more studies. CONCLUSION: This study identified gaps in research funding distribution across cancer types and geographic areas in South Asia. This data can be used to optimize the distribution of cancer research funding in South Asia, fostering equitable advancement in cancer research.

Researcher, research thyself? Mapping the landscape of canine health and welfare research funding provided by UK not-for-profit organisations from 2012-2022.

BACKGROUND: Research into canine health and welfare is supported by Government, charitable and private UK funding organisations. However, there is no current overall visibility or coordination of these funding activities, potentially compromising optimal distribution of limited resources. This study aimed to survey UK canine health and welfare funding by not-for-profit funders between 2012 and 2022, providing a novel baseline analysis to inform future sector stakeholder priorities. RESULTS: Funding data were collected from 10 wide-scope funders (UK Government funding councils and medical charities), 18 animal-directed funders (organisations specifically concerned with animal health and welfare) and 81 breed community groups. These 109 UK funders together provided traceable canine-relevant funding of £57.8 million during the surveyed period, comprising 684 individual grant awards supporting over 500 separate research projects. Wide-scope funders contributed £41.2 million (71.2% of total funding); animal-directed organisations, £16.3 million (28.1% of total funding); and breed-specific groups, £370K (0.6% of total funding). Individual grants ranged from £2.3 million to £300. Funding patterns varied between sectors. Animal-directed funders provided £14.7 million of canine-relevant research funding that foregrounded the dog, 73% of all such funding; wide-scope funders provided £17.5 million of canine-relevant One Health research funding, 97% of all such funding. Customised metrics developed for this study assessed the 'benefit to the dog' and 'pathway to impact' of individual research projects. Overall, studies supported by animal-directed funders achieved significantly higher 'benefit to the dog' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 45235, p<0.001) and 'pathway to impact' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 43506.5, p<0.001) than those supported by wide-scope funders. CONCLUSION: The landscape of UK not-for-profit funding of canine health and welfare research is complex, with considerable variation between providers. Although wide-scope funders provide the majority of overall canine-relevant research funding, animal-directed funders provide the majority of canine-focused funding and support research with greater direct impact on canine welfare. Visibility of past funding patterns will enable stakeholders in this sector to make more informed decisions about future research. DEFINITIONS: To increase clarity, certain words and phrases are used in specific ways within the context of this paper. Animal-directed funders-Charities and other funding organisations whose remit primarily concerns animals or veterinary work Canine-focused research-Investigations where the primary purpose is to advance understandings of canine health and/or welfare Canine-relevant research-All research that is framed as advancing understandings of canine health and/or welfare as a primary or subsidiary purpose Institution-Refers to universities and other centres where research is carried out Organisation-Refers to funding bodies, including research councils, charities and other groups Research grant-A single funding event originating from one or more funders Research project-A cohesive piece of research concerning a particular topic; may involve multiple researchers and/or multiple research grants, in series or in parallel Wide-scope funders-Large organisations whose remit does not primarily concern animals, i.e. (in this dataset) UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust.

Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.

This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.

A Scholarly Dialog on Recent Trends in National Institutes of Health's Funding for the Thyroid Field.

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the major funding agency for biomedical research in the United States. To initiate a scholarly dialog about research and career development in the thyroid field, here we reviewed recent trends in NIH funding for this area. We used the Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database to estimate the level of NIH extramural support during 2013-2022 (number of active grants/year and $amount/year weighed by the total number of active grants/year and $amount/year), provided by the NIH to the thyroid field. We determined that in 2013, the NIH supported ∼140 grants/year, totaling almost $50 million/year, the majority in the form of R01 grants. Within the thyroid field, support was evenly split between thyroid cancer and thyroid hormone metabolism and action subareas. In the subsequent years (2014-2022), the total number of active grants peaked at 150/year ($55 million) in 2014 but progressively decreased to about 100 active grants/year ($30 million) in 2022. This trend occurred while the NIH budget increased from $29 to $46 billion/year. Globally, the number of thyroid-related publications increased by ∼70% during the study period, and the fractional contribution of several countries remained relatively stable, except for China which increased by ∼600%. Remarkably, the fraction of thyroid-related publications in the United States sponsored by the NIH decreased from 5.5% to 3.1% of the global number. Conclusion: These results constitute a very concerning scenario for research and education in the thyroid field. We appeal to the NIH, the professional societies in endocrinology and thyroidology, and all other relevant stakeholders such as thyroid-related professionals and thyroid patients to engage in further discussions to identify the root causes of this trend and implement an action plan to stabilize and eventually reverse this situation.