Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(11)
We highlight the trends in both total investment and temporal drift in funding by type of science.
By type of science, the metrics suggest public health research to be the most productive area for HIV and tuberculosis and phase I III trials for malaria.
By type of science along the R&D value chain, £42.2 million (87%) was directed towards preclinical research, and £2.6 million (5%) towards implementation and operational research.
We explore the impact of investment and published outputs by analysing citations for each disease area and by type of science.
By type of science, public health research was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), while phase I III trials were most productive for malaria (£60,491).
By type of science (Additional file 1), public health was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), with phase I III trials being the least productive (£326,440 and £187,185, respectively).
Similar(49)
We assess research investments to United Kingdom institutions in HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and analyse these by numbers of publications and citations and by disease and type of science.
Data were matched by disease and type of science categories.
Information on infection-related research investments awarded to United Kingdom institutions across 1997 2010 were sourced from funding agencies and individually categorised by disease and type of science.
There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science.
Data related to awards to UK institutions for pneumonia research from 1997 to 2013 were systematically sourced and categorised by disease area and type of science.
More suggestions(15)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com