The output efficiency of the National Science Foundation′s rehabilitation funding from 2009 to 2018
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1424.2022.04.016
- VernacularTitle:2009年至2018年国家自然科学基金康复医学领域资助项目产出效益分析
- Author:
Shan SHAO
1
;
Hui WEI
;
Yuan ZHANG
;
Lei JIA
;
Wenjie SHEN
;
Dou DOU
;
Shouwei YUE
Author Information
1. 山东大学齐鲁医院康复科，济南 250012
- Keywords:
Rehabilitation;
Bibliometrics;
National Natural Science Foundation of China;
National Institutes of Health;
Impact factors
- From:
Chinese Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
2022;44(4):356-360
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To analyze and compare rehabilitation research funded by China′s National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC) with that funded by America′s National Institutes of Health (NIH) so as to provide references for future funding.Methods:Articles reporting rehabilitation research funded by the NSFC and the NIH were retrieved from the NSFC′s Science Output Service website and the NIH′s Project Report website and analyzed.Results:From 2009 to 2018 the NSFC funded 421 rehabilitation studies which resulted in a published report while the NIH funded 312. In 2018, the NSFC budget (US$3.89 million) was 8.46 times that of 2009 (US$460, 000), while the NIH′s grant budget (US$36.08 million) was 2.17 times that of 2009 (US$16.62 million). The number of published papers resulting from the Chinese and American studies was 1111 and 2571 respectively. Their impact factors mainly ranged between 0 and 3 points. Among the journals with an impact factor of 6 or more, published papers from the United States (297) were much more numerous than those from China (18). The number of SCI papers per million US dollars increased by 2.25 times in China and 0.05 times in the US.Conclusions:Both China and the United States have been investing more in rehabilitation medicine research, and that has resulted in more published papers. There is still a gap in funding and output between the two countries.
