The vast majority of articles on peer review in Nature and Science only refer to journal publication, not funding distribution. Of course they're linked as a pu

The vast majority of articles on peer review in Nature and Science only refer to journal publication, not funding distribution. Of course they're linked as a publication in Science or Nature helps greatly with the next round of funding applications by all accounts. It matters outside of academics because NIH funding distributions are linked to exclusive patents for pharmaceutical corporations, which represent a massive public subsidy for the pharma sector. This system also accounts for much of the price inflation in the medical drug markets in the USA, and a lack of research into medical uses of out-of-patent (cheap) drugs. See for example: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-07-nih-spent-950m-basic-patents.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-07-nih-spent-950m-basic-... > "The article in PLOS ONE titled, "NIH funding for patents that contribute to market exclusivity of drugs approved 2010–2019 and the public interest protections of Bayh-Dole," is the first to look broadly at the NIH funding for the basic and applied research related to new drug approvals and the proportion of this research that leads to patents that give manufacturers market exclusivity."