Pakistan has a range of national, federal, provincial and private organizations, foundations and donors that support research. This discussion is not about how grants are allocated, how much money is provided, or which organization funds more research. Rather, it raises a simple but important question: after research funding has been provided, how can a sponsor evaluate what that investment has produced? Each sponsor could consider developing a framework to evaluate the outputs and outcomes of the research it supports. What constitutes a “product” of research sponsorship is, of course, debatable.
A project may produce publications, datasets, patents, technologies, clinical applications, trained researchers, collaborations, infrastructure or solutions to societal problems. Expected outputs will also vary across disciplines and between basic, applied and translational research. At least some quantitative indicators, however, can be assessed relatively easily. Using established international databases, depending on the field, sponsors can examine the number of publications generated by funded research, the journals in which they appear, journal rankings or quartiles, citation counts, the proportion of uncited publications and indicators such as the h-index. These measures do not provide a complete assessment of research quality or impact, but they can offer an accessible starting point for monitoring research productivity and scholarly visibility.
An analysis of dermatology research from 2001 to 2025 provides one practical illustration. I performed a study, and examined publications in journals containing “dermat” in their titles and assessed publication output, citations, h-index and the proportion of uncited publications. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) was associated with 3,577 dermatology publications, nearly 150,000 citations and an h-index of 162. The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) showed particularly strong citation visibility, with only 3.4% of its publications remaining uncited and an h-index of 156. The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supported 2,614 publications, which received approximately 30,293 citations, while 25.6% remained uncited. Pharmaceutical sponsors, including Pfizer, AbbVie, Novartis and Eli Lilly, supported fewer publications but showed relatively low uncited proportions of approximately 3–7%.
These figures should not be interpreted as a competition between sponsors, nor as evidence that one funding organization is inherently better than another. Research operates within different national, institutional, financial and disciplinary contexts, and citation patterns are influenced by many factors. The purpose of presenting these figures is simply to demonstrate what can be measured after research has been funded. Each sponsor could develop an evaluation framework suited to the objectives and nature of the research it supports. Possible indicators include publication output, journal quality or quartile, citation performance, scholarly visibility, the proportion of uncited publications and h-index, together with international and interdisciplinary collaboration, patents, technologies, datasets and other research outputs.
Sponsors may also consider clinical, industrial or technological translation, researcher training, infrastructure development, institutional capacity and contributions to societal or public-health challenges. The appropriate indicators will naturally vary by discipline. A chemistry project may produce a new material or method; an engineering project may generate a prototype or patent; and medical research may contribute to clinical guidelines, treatments or improved patient care. Therefore, no single indicator should define research success. Sponsors should combine quantitative and qualitative measures according to the objectives, nature and expected outcomes of the research they support.
Research funding should respond not only to established research traditions but also to contemporary scientific challenges, emerging technologies, unmet health and societal needs, and areas where national research capacity needs strengthening.
Such evaluation should not be viewed as a punitive exercise for researchers. Rather, it should help sponsors learn from the research they support. If a particular research area consistently produces highly visible and influential work, it may deserve continued or expanded investment. If an emerging topic receives little local support despite growing international importance, sponsors may consider whether it should become a future priority. Similarly, if particular universities or research groups repeatedly demonstrate strong research capacity and meaningful outputs, their future potential may deserve consideration. Conversely, where substantial funding repeatedly produces limited measurable progress or visibility, sponsors can investigate the reasons rather than simply assuming that the funding has failed. This leads to a more important question: What kinds of research should be funded next?
Research funding should respond not only to established research traditions but also to contemporary scientific challenges, emerging technologies, unmet health and societal needs, and areas where national research capacity needs strengthening. In this sense, evaluation is not merely about looking backward. It can help sponsors make better-informed decisions about future investment. The present example focuses specifically on dermatology, but the underlying concept can be applied to virtually every research field.
A cancer research sponsor could examine publications, citations, clinical trials, patents and treatment-related outcomes. A chemistry funding body could assess publications, highly cited research, new methods, materials, patents and collaborations. An agricultural sponsor could examine publications alongside new technologies, improved practices and field-level outcomes. Similar frameworks could be developed for engineering, artificial intelligence, environmental science, neuroscience, infectious diseases, social sciences and many other disciplines. The dermatology analysis should therefore be viewed not as a ranking exercise, but as an example of how research sponsorship can be quantitatively evaluated after funding has been provided.
Measuring research impact, of course, requires a diverse set of indicators. Assessment may involve individual researchers, research groups, departments, faculties or universities as a whole, depending on the purpose of the evaluation. Sponsors could nevertheless develop their own practical evaluation frameworks to monitor the progress and outputs of the research they fund. Such frameworks could combine different indicators with qualitative assessment and discipline-specific outcomes.
Although the indicators cannot answer every question. A highly cited paper is not automatically high-quality research, and an uncited paper is not necessarily unsuccessful. Newly published research may simply need time to accumulate citations, while research addressing a local health problem may have considerable practical value without receiving substantial international citations. Nevertheless, publications, journal quartiles, citations, uncited proportions and h-index values can provide useful signals of research productivity and visibility when interpreted alongside other evidence.
For Pakistan's research-funding organizations, universities, foundations and private donors, developing such mechanisms could create a valuable cycle of funding, monitoring, learning and improved future investment. Ultimately, the question is not simply “How much research did we fund?” or “How many papers did it produce?” It is: What did the investment produce, what happened to that research after publication, and what can we learn from it for the next round of funding?