Cited by 123scientometrics and bibliometrics researchResearch, Science, and AcademiaAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Public use and public funding of science

Open access
Yin, Yian, Dong, Yuxiao, Wang, Kuansan, Wang, Dashun, Jones, Benjamin F.·2022·Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract

Knowledge of how science is consumed in public domains is essential for understanding the role of science in human society. Here we examine public use and public funding of science by linking tens of millions of scientific publications from all scientific fields to their upstream funding support and downstream public uses across three public domains—government documents, news media and marketplace invention. We find that different public domains draw from various scientific fields in specialized ways, showing diverse patterns of use. Yet, amidst these differences, we find two important forms of alignment. First, we find universal alignment between what the public consumes and what is highly impactful within science. Second, a field’s public funding is strikingly aligned with the field’s collective public use. Overall, public uses of science present a rich landscape of specialized consumption, yet, collectively, science and society interface with remarkable alignment between scientific use, public use and funding. Studying production, funding and consumption of science, the authors find a strong alignment between what the public consumes and what is impactful, as well as an alignment between funding and collective public use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-022-01397-5

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Decisions about allocation of taxpayer dollars influence which scientific ideas receive support, which fields advance, and which investigators are able to initiate and sustain research programs.

    “Through competitive grant programs at agencies such as the NSF and the NIH, decisions about the allocation of taxpayer dollars influence which scientific ideas receive support, which fields advance, and which investigators are able to initiate and sustain research programs (3–10).”

    From The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says that funding allocation involves decisions by legislators and funding agencies that affect what is funded. The Results (page unavailable) examine how public investment varies across research fields. Our copy does not establish that these decisions determine which fields advance or which investigators can initiate and sustain research programs. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The federal funding process plays a central role in shaping the direction, diversity, and long-run impact of the US scientific enterprise and the global research landscape.

    “Thus, the federal funding process plays a central role in shaping the direction, diversity, and long-run impact of the US scientific enterprise and—given America’s scientific leadership—the global research landscape as well (3–10).”

    From The rise of large language models and the direction and impact of US federal research funding (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Abstract calls public investment a central feature of the scientific ecosystem, and the Results and Discussion describe funding decisions and substantial differences in funding across research fields (pages not available in our copy). These passages support the importance of funding to the US scientific enterprise, but they do not establish that the federal funding process shapes scientific diversity or long-run impact, or that its effects extend to the global research landscape. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973).
  2. Mokyr, J. The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002).
  3. Arrow, K. in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (National Bureau of Economic Research) 609-626 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1962).
  4. Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. & National Academy of Engineering. The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth (National Academies Press, 1986).
  5. National Research Council. Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection (The National Academies Press, 1978).
  6. National Research Council. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy (National Academies Press, 2012).
  7. Garfield, E. & Merton, R. K. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. Vol. 8 (Wiley New York, 1979).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yin, Y., Dong, Y., Wang, K., Wang, D., & Jones, B. F.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wang, Dashun
  • Jones, Benjamin F.
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2022-07-07
Volume
6
Issue
10
Pages
1344-1350
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4284704491
Cited by
123
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 5
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Department of Defense | United States Air Force | AFMC | Air Force Office of Scientific Research
  • National Science Foundation
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Research, Science, and Academia
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
research funding, scientific publications, government documents, news media, science-society interface
MeSH terms
Humans, Mass Media, Knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review