ArticlePNAS nexus2026
Interdisciplinary papers supported by disciplinary grants garner deep and broad scientific impact.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating interdisciplinary research: Disparate outcomes for topic and knowledge base.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Toward parallel intelligence: An interdisciplinary solution for complex systems.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interdisciplinary research has emerged as a hotbed for innovation and a key approach to addressing complex societal challenges. The dominance of grant-supported research in shaping scientific advances, coupled with growing interest in funding interdisciplinary work, raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of interdisciplinary grants in fostering high-impact interdisciplinary research outcomes. Here, we analyze 350,000 grants from 164 agencies in 26 countries, along with 1.3 million resulting papers published between 1985 and 2009, to examine whether interdisciplinary grants successfully cultivate high-impact interdisciplinary research. Although interdisciplinary grants tend to produce interdisciplinary papers as intended, they yield fewer papers on average. Furthermore, while interdisciplinary papers are generally associated with high impact, those supported by interdisciplinary grants show substantially lower impact compared with those funded by disciplinary grants. In contrast, highly interdisciplinary papers anchored in deeply disciplinary grants garner disproportionately more citations, both within their core disciplines and from broader fields. This impact advantage is not merely a consequence of funding size, reception of ideas within disciplinary boundaries, or collaborative formats. Amid the substantial rise of support for interdisciplinary work across the sciences, these results highlight the underexplored role of disciplinary grants in driving interdisciplinary advances, suggesting that interdisciplinary research may benefit from deep disciplinary expertise and investments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.