The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Public use and public funding of science
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention
Arrow, K. J. (1962) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400879762-024 · Cited by 8,891
Etzkowitz, H., & Loet Leydesdorff, A. (2000) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4 · Cited by 8,632
Double-slit photoelectron interference in strong-field ionization of the neon dimer
Kunitski, M., Eicke, N., Huber, P., Köhler, J., Zeller, S., Voigtsberger, J., Schlott, N., Henrichs, K., Sann, H., Trinter, F., et al. (2019) · Institutional Repository of Leibniz Universität Hannover (Leibniz Universität Hannover) · doi:10.15488/5174 · Cited by 8,378
Double-slit photoelectron interference in strong-field ionization of the neon dimer
Kunitski, M., Eicke, N., Huber, P., Köhler, J., Zeller, S., Voigtsberger, J., Schlott, N., Henrichs, K., Sann, H., Trinter, F., et al. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07882-8 · Cited by 8,162
The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1136099 · Cited by 3,615
Self-citationPrice, D. J. D. S. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.149.3683.510 · Cited by 3,205
The Many Meanings of Research Utilization
Weiss, C. H. (1979) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/3109916 · Cited by 2,364
Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future
Augustine, N. R. (2006) · Cited by 2,064
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., Petersen, A. M., Radicchi, F., Sinatra, R., Uzzi, B., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao0185 · Cited by 1,497
Self-citationOn the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities
Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1995) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/0048-7333(93)00762-i · Cited by 1,405
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973).
- Mokyr, J. The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002).
- Stephan, P. E. The economics of science. J. Econ. Lit. 34, 1199–1235 (1996).
- Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. & National Academy of Engineering. The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth (National Academies Press, 1986).
- National Research Council. Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection (The National Academies Press, 1978).
- National Research Council. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy (National Academies Press, 2012).
- Hatfield, E. Proxmire’s golden fleece award. Relationship Research News 4, 5–9 (2006).
- 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
Items 101–122 of 122
Krauß, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198937401.003.0008
Krauß, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198937401.003.0022
Krauß, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198937401.003.0011
Krauß, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198937401.003.0004
The Limits of Science: An Overview
Krauß, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198937401.003.0019
Scientometrics and Network Science
Krauß, A. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780198937401.003.0012
Muñoz, I. G., Belloso, M. L., & Cabrera, M. S. (2024) · Investigaciones Feministas · doi:10.5209/infe.94515 · Cited by 1
van Broekhoven, K., & Toivainen, T. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-82415-9_7
Using peer review to evaluate the societal relevance of humanities research
Conix, S., Vignero, L., Lemeire, O., Chi, P., & Li, L. (2025) · Quantitative Science Studies · doi:10.1162/qss.a.19
“As a result, humanities fields typically score poorly compared to other domains when these methods are used (Yin, Dong et al., 2022).”
Standing on the shoulder of data: data-driven research boosts scientific innovation
Yang, A. J., Zhao, S. X., & Deng, S. (2025) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-025-05424-w · Cited by 1
Yan, Z. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009381338.002
Yan, Z. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009381338.004
The downside of co-author success in scientific collaborations
Andersen, K. P. H., Mors, M. L., & Jeppesen, J. (2025) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662716.2025.2592924
“Scientific knowledge is a public good and is heavily reliant on public funding (Yin et al. 2022), and it is therefore essential to promote an optimal allocation of resources to research projects.”
The impact of the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard on science and policy
Confraria, H., Grassano, N., Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., & Nindl, E. (2025) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scaf077
Global Inequalities in Clinical Trials ParticipationPreprint
Lou, W., Díaz‐Faes, A. A., He, J., Liu, Z., & Larivière, V. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.01.08.26343653 · Cited by 1
Societal impact of physics research: unpacking driving factors and moderating paths
Min, C., Yun, D., Wu, D., Wu, B., & Sun, J. (2026) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-025-05533-6
“Scientific research realizes its full value not only through academic impact but also through societal contributions (Bornmann & Marx, 2014; Yin et al., 2022).”
When Evidence Exists but Is Not Used: Diagnosing Policy Responsiveness in COVID-19 Education PolicyPreprint
Mahfouz, B., Capra, L., & Mulgan, G. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8642639/v1
Women's Research in STEM has Greater Impact on Public PolicyPreprint
Li, W., Zheng, H., Zhang, X., & Clauset, A. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6108566
Ježovita, J., Ćosić, T., & Knežević, L. (2026) · Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems · doi:10.7906/indecs.24.1.3
“Since science represents a public good and produces socially useful and reliable information [10] , it has become one of the key allies in the realization of citizens’ epistemic rights.”
Herrmann, T.-A., Kaspar, K., & Packard, S. (2026) · Studies in language companion series · doi:10.1075/slcs.240.07her
The European Union’s use of scientific knowledge in SDG policymaking: a topic model approach
Hemmes, R. A., Leendertse, J., Janssen, M. J., & van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2026) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scag032 · Cited by 1
The “Scientific Elite” as a Problem and Concept
Katchanov, Y. L. (2026) · Sociological Journal · doi:10.19181/socjour.2026.32.2.4
Metadata
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Research, Science, and Academia
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › 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
