research funding by country

• Gross domestic spending on R&D

Related topics

• Innovation and Technology

Gross domestic spending on R&D is defined as the total expenditure (current and capital) on R&D carried out by all resident companies, research institutes, university and government laboratories, etc., in a country. It includes R&D funded from abroad, but excludes domestic funds for R&D performed outside the domestic economy. This indicator is measured in USD constant prices using 2015 base year and Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) and as percentage of GDP

Latest publication

• Researchers
• Government researchers
• Triadic patent families

Gross domestic spending on R&D Source: Main Science and Technology Indicators

• Selected data only (.csv)
• Full indicator data (.csv)
• Add this view
• Go to pinboard

©OECD · Terms & Conditions

Perspectives

Highlight countries.

Find a country by name

Currently highlighted

Select background.

• European Union

Show baseline: OECD

latest data available

Definition of Gross domestic spending on R&D

Last published in.

Please cite this indicator as follows:

Related publications

Source database, further indicators related to research and development (r&d), further publications related to research and development (r&d).

Your selection for sharing:

• Snapshot of data for a fixed period (data will not change even if updated on the site)
• Latest available data for a fixed period,
• Latest available data,

Sharing options

Permanent url.

Copy the URL to open this chart with all your selections.

Use this code to embed the visualisation into your website.

Width: px Preview Embedding

These are the global innovation powerhouses of 2021

More than half the top 20 are European countries, but five Asian economies are in the upper rankings. Image:  Unsplash/Tomek Baginski

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Sean Fleming

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} The Digital Transformation of Business is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, the digital transformation of business.

Listen to the article

• Switzerland continues to be ranked as the most innovation-friendly country in the world.
• More than half of the R&D top 20 are European economies and five are Asian.
• China is outperforming many others where IP is concerned but lags behind in other key areas.

Global investment in innovation remained buoyant throughout 2020, despite the setbacks ushered in by the pandemic. High-tech industries in particular maintained their commitment to research and development (R&D) spending, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) Global Innovation Index (GII).

The top three countries for R&D investment, as ranked in the GII, are Switzerland, Sweden and the US. Switzerland has held the number one spot in the Index since 2011.

Facilitating innovation

Global rankings.

This year, South Korea has been placed in the top five for the first time.

More than half the top 20 are European countries, but five Asian economies are in the upper rankings – South Korea (5th), Singapore (8th), China (12th), Japan (13th) and Hong Kong (14th). China is the only middle-income economy in the top 30, WIPO says.

China scores highly in the GII for its number of patents, trademarks and industrial designs. However, it lags behind other economies in areas like human capital, enrollment in tertiary education, plus market sophistication and business sophistication.

There are a number of countries that are performing above expectations relative to their economic development. These include India, Kenya, the Republic of Moldova and Viet Nam.

To create the rankings, WIPO assesses economies’ against a number of criteria that influence and facilitate innovation, as well as those that are created as a result of innovation. These indicators include things like the volume of venture capital deals, the number of scientific papers published, labour and productivity growth, and high-tech exports.

Have you read?

These countries spend the most on research and development, industry innovation: how has covid-19 changed global healthcare, what does waiving intellectual property rights for covid-19 vaccines mean , r&d spending: pre- and post-pandemic.

Despite the pandemic, WIPO says many countries stuck to their commitments around supporting innovation. While that is a positive thing, WIPO says there is still much to be done.

“The global innovation landscape is changing too slowly,” it warns. It points out that while high-income, developed economies continue to perform well where innovation investment is concerned, other countries are getting left behind.

“There is an urgent need for this to change, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 crisis,” the GII report continues. “Confronted with an unprecedented crisis, it is important to fully leverage the power of innovation to collectively build a cohesive, dynamic and sustainable recovery.”

WIPO points to a failure on the part of some national governments to regard R&D as a priority in their post-COVID economic stimulus packages. Rather than cut-back, governments should boost R&D spending at times of economic slow-down, the GII report argues, as a way of filling any spending gaps left by the private sector.

Successful innovation takes place within ecosystems that make it possible for an idea to come to fruition and be commercially viable. Such ecosystems require a business environment that rewards risk-taking, regulations that provide a working economic and legal framework, and knowledge-generation (universities, research centres and laboratories), according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2020 .

Investments in innovation reached an all-time high before the pandemic, according to the GII – R&D spending was growing at 8.5% in 2019. In 2020, the top global corporate R&D spenders increased expenditures by around 10%, while the number of venture-capital-backed deals grew by 5.8%.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report says that not enough of that pre-pandemic investment was directed at making “societies more inclusive, sustainable and resilient.”

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Stakeholder Capitalism .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

'It's now cheaper to save the world than destroy it': author Akshat Rathi on Climate Capitalism 

Robin Pomeroy and Sophia Akram

April 10, 2024

How family business could lead solutions to today's sustainability challenges

Chavalit Frederick Tsao

March 27, 2024

EU governments back human rights and environmental due diligence law for supply chains

Kimberley Botwright and Spencer Feingold

How true strategic foresight can help companies survive and thrive

January 31, 2024

Generative AI risks: How can chief legal officers tackle them?

Kenneth White and Nivedita Sen

January 15, 2024

Corporations are fuelling inequality. Here's how

Amitabh Behar

Interactive visualization requires JavaScript

Research and development expenditure - Country rankings

Research and development expenditure, percent of gdp, 2021:.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

United States

• R&D and Innovation FAQs

The Bottom Line

• Government & Policy

What Country Spends the Most on Research and Development?

Israel and South Korea are the world’s leading spenders on research and development (R&D) as a percentage of gross domestic product ( GDP ). In pure dollar terms, however, the United States is consistently the largest spender on R&D. Let's take a look at which other countries are the highest spenders in R&D and what they invest in.

It's important to note that there can be many criteria to evaulate R&D spend. In this article, we'll primarily look at R&D spend compared to a country's GDP.

Key Takeaways

• Israel and South Korea lead global R&D spending as a percentage of GDP, while the United States dominates in pure dollar terms.
• Israel's growth is fueled by programs like Yozma, attracting foreign investors and promoting venture capital funds.
• South Korea planned a 4.6% increase in 2022 R&D spending, emphasizing global tech leadership and allocating funds to numerous projects.
• Switzerland, though not top spenders, has been consistently recognized as the most innovative country for 13 years by some non-financial metrics.
• The U.S. 2023 budget proposes a significant increase in federal R&D funding, focusing on science, technology, pandemic preparedness, and climate innovation.

Research and Development, % of GDP: 5.56%

Israel has also seen an extended period of expansion in terms of research and development. The Israeli government has introduced a number of programs over the last few decades to promote growth, and the business sector has also stepped up. One of the programs that has had the biggest impact on Israel's growth in R&D is "Yozma," which is the Hebrew word for initiative. Yozma invested in venture capital funds and drew foreign investors by offering them insurance on risk.

Research and Development, % of GDP: 4.93%

The Korea Presidential Advisory Council on Science and Technology approved a 4.6% increase in 2022 research and development spending, totaling 23.5 trillion won (roughly $20.7 billion). Emphasizing the need for global technology leadership, the council planned in invest in nearly 1,200 projects with 21.3 trillion won allocated to 892 ongoing projects and 1.9 trillion won for 290 new areas.

It may not have made this list based on dollars and GDP, but Switzerland has been recognized as the most innovative country by the World Intellectual Property Organization 13 years in a row, most recently in 2023.

Research and Development, % of GDP: 3.46%

Belgium's government has consistently evolved as a global innovator, contributing a higher percentage of its GDP every year since 2005. The European Commission notes Belgium as an "Innovation Leader" compared to the rest of the EU with the country's strengths residing in finance, firm investments, product innovation, and export of innovative goods. The World Economic Forum also notes Belgium as one of the top innovation spenders in Europe.

While South Korea and Israel lead the spending charge on a percentage of GDP basis, the U.S. is first and China is second on a dollar basis.

The President's 2023 Budget proposed a substantial increase in Federal R&D funding. Biden's proposal reached $204.9 billion and focused on leveraging the full potential of science and technology for the benefit of the American people.

The budget allocated $110.9 billion for basic and applied research. The budget also addressed critical areas such as pandemic preparedness, earmarking $81.7 billion over five years at the Department of Health and Human Services for new funding in this regard, including significant R&D investments. Additionally, $16.9 billion in discretionary funding was allocated for climate innovation.

Research and Development, % of GDP: 3.42%

In 2022, the Swedish government allocated an estimated SEK 43.5 billion for R&D in 2022, reflecting a decrease of SEK 540 million in fixed prices compared to the previous year. Note that about half of the research funding during the year was directed towards enhancing overall knowledge advancement at universities and colleges. The amount spent ended up actually being approximately SEK 940 million less than the 2021 allocation in fixed prices.

What Country Has the Most Innovative Technology?

There are different ways to measure technological innovation. For example, the World Economic Forum notes 33 technology pioneer companies being in North America with 23 being in Europe.

What Initiatives Does the U.S. Government Take to Support and Promote R&D?

The U.S. government supports and promotes research and development across various industries through initiatives such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy (DOE). These agencies provide funding, grants, and collaborative programs to stimulate innovation in fields ranging from healthcare and biotechnology to energy and technology.

How Does the U.S. Government Facilitate Collaboration Between Industry, Academia, and Research Institutions?

The U.S. government actively fosters collaboration between industry, academia, and research institutions to advance R&D initiatives. Programs like the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) facilitate partnerships, while federal grants encourage joint projects that bridge the gap between theoretical research and practical applications.

There's different ways to measure the most innovative countries in the world. One potential measure is to see what country spends the most on research and development. In this article, we've looked at the countries that spend the most on R&D compared to that country's GDP. With this criteria, Israel, Korea, and Sweden top the list.

The World Bank. " Research and Development Expenditure (% of GDP) ."

Yozma. " Go Global From the Start ."

Entrepreneurship Research Center on G20 Economies. " Korea ."

World Intellectual Property Organization. " Global Innovation Index 2023 ."

The World Bank. " Research and Development Expenditure (% of GDP) - Belgium ."

European Commission. " European Innovation Scoreboard 2023, Country Profile: Belgium ."

World Economic Forum. " These Are the Top 5 Most Innovative Countries in the European Union ."

White House. " 18. Research and Development [2023 Budget] ."

Statistics Sweden. " Reduced Funding for Research and Development in 2022 ."

World Economic Forum. " Technology Pioneers 2022 ."

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

World Report: an interactive mapping database of global biomedical research

World report: worldreport.nih.gov.

World Report allows users to easily visualize international research activities and partnered investments.

World Report is an interactive, open-access online database and mapping tool of global research investments. The site depicts direct and indirect awards supported by some of the world’s largest biomedical research funders by continent, country, funding organization, research organization and year. It includes funding data starting from 2016 onward. Users can search research projects by keywords in titles and abstracts; and filter them by location (continent, country or city), funding organization, research organization, principal investigator name, or any combination.

World Report provides a public means to track international research activities and partnered investments, increase awareness of funding opportunities and share results with the broader research and funding community. The goal is to improve understanding of the research landscape, identify gaps in funding and areas where there might be a duplication of effort, and enable funders to more effectively synergize investments.

World Report

World Report Data in Use: Partner Publications

• Investments on grants for biomedical research by funder, type of grant, health category and recipient (World RePORT) Global Observatory on Health R&D, January 2021
• Number of grants for biomedical research by funder, type of grant, duration and recipients WHO Global Observatory on Health R&D , January 2021
• Collaborations (between institutions) that resulted from grants for biomedical research WHO Global Observatory on Health R&D , December 2020
• A Mechanism for Reviewing Investments in Health Research Capacity Strengthening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries . Annals of Global Health , August 2020
• Resource allocation for biomedical research: analysis of investments by major funders [Open access] using World Report Health Research Policy and Systems , February 17, 2020
• World Report shows scant research conducted in Middle East region
• Addressing challenges of data scarcity in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region: How World RePORT can identify research disparities and pave the path for the future [PDF] ACCESS news, June 2019
• WHO uses World Report funding data in its analyses
• Editorial: Biomedical research; what gets funded where? Bulletin of the World Health Organization , August 2019
• BIO Ventures examines global cancer research funding using World Report
• Global cancer research investments are not reaching Africa - How the African Access Initiative is changing the trend Blog post by Jennifer Dent, President, BIO Ventures for Global Health, June 18, 2019
• Building an evidence base to advocate for TB research using NIH databases, including World Report TB Online blog post from the Treatment Action Group (TAG), March 29, 2019

Related News

• World Report data aids entrepreneurship in Africa Global Health Matters , March / April 2022
• World RePORT: a database for mapping biomedical research funding The Lancet Global Health , Dec 13, 2019
• New data now available in World Report Global Health Matters , Nov / Dec 2018

World Report Participants

World Report is hosted by NIH; managed by a steering committee of participants; and supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the European Commission, the NIH, the U.K.'s Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust.

World Report includes funding data from:

• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research
• European Commission
• European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership
• German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
• Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases
• Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)
• Institut Pasteur
• Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)
• Max Planck Society
• Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
• Swedish Research Council
• U.K. Medical Research Council
• United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
• U.S. National Institutes of Health
• Wellcome Trust

Updated April 25, 2023

Infographic: how much does the world spend on science?

Bioinformatician, King's College London

Disclosure statement

Andrew Steele and co-author Tom Fuller are founders of Scienceogram UK, a campaign calling for increased science spending by making sense of the numbers.

King's College London provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

How much do we really spend on research and development, and how does it vary internationally? To provide some context for this science funding debate, the Scienceogram team has broken down spending across the G20 countries.

In the chart below, the vertical depth of the bars represents the countries’ GDP, a measure of total national economic output. The width of the bars represents the percentage of that GDP invested in research and development (R&D). That means that the area of each block is proportional to the overall spend on research.

The graph is divided into spending by governments, private businesses and other sources. The averages for these countries are 0.65% of GDP spent by governments, 1.26% of GDP invested by the private sector, and a further 0.13% of GDP coming from other sources.

A few broad conclusions emerge from the data:

The percentage of GDP invested in research and development varies widely across the world. South Korea is powering ahead at 3.7% of GDP. (And its investment is increasing rapidly, up from 2.8% in 2005.) The UK is below average by most international measures , spending 1.7% of GDP on research. Spending is much lower in the less wealthy G20 member states, although time series data show that many are ramping up investment.

In most countries, the private sector makes the larger contribution to the research ecosystem. The exceptions to this rule are Brazil, Russia, India, Argentina and Indonesia.

The US is a global research behemoth, in both the public and private sectors. A healthy percentage of its GDP is sunk into science meaning that, in absolute terms at least, even China won’t be competing with it any time soon.

Dividing research spending into public and private inevitably misses some subtleties. There is a symbiotic relationship between state and business investment in R&D. This ranges from the direct, such as government-sponsored loans and grants for a variety of private projects, to the diffuse, like the education and training provided by public-funded research that underpins a skilled workforce.

The international variation in science policy means that it’s worth taking the sharp dividing lines on the graph with a pinch of salt: no taxonomy of research funding could adequately capture all this detail. Still, these numbers do give an impression of the big picture, and show the widely divergent levels of investment in science internationally.

Andrew Steele co-authored this article with Tom Fuller, an editor and graphic designer based in Oxford. They are founders of Scienceogram UK .

For : Science is vital, just not in the way you think

Counter : Trust the markets to fund science

Sources of data

All the data used for this graphic are available in this Google Spreadsheet .

The United Nations publishes a range of statistics on scientific research and development on the UNESCO online Data Centre . We used the most recent values of “GERD by source of funds” (GERD = Gross Expenditure on Research and Development) for government and business enterprise, and aggregated the other categories (private non-profit, higher education, abroad and “not specified”) to work out where nations sit relative to one another on an internationally uniform scale.

This breakdown by source of funds is not available for Saudi Arabia, which is why its bar is entirely grey. Also, while the European Union is a bloc member of the G20, it is not included this graphic.

We used the most recent figures for all data, but these are not perfectly up to date. For example, all the most recent UK figures are for 2010, so they don’t fully reflect the real-terms reduction in science spending since then . They’re also not always uniformly dated; to take another example, Australia’s GDP and total R&D spending figures are from 2010, but the most recent percentage breakdowns into government, business and so on come from 2008. Data for most other countries are for 2008–2010. This is a limitation of the data, and choosing a different methodology doesn’t significantly change the results.

Finally, while UNESCO make the separation of the “source” of funds and the “sector of performance” obvious, other data sources report in a more confusing fashion. For example, Government Expenditure on R&D (GovERD) refers to R&D performed by government bodies, and does not specify who picked up the bill. Conversely, “GERD financed by Government” (the statistic we used) refers to R&D paid for by the government, irrespective of where it was performed.

• Science funding
• Infographic

Clinical Education Strategy & Risk Project Officer

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 29 April 2020

The ten leading countries in natural-sciences research

A scientist examines information on COVID-19 as part of vaccine research at the Pasteur Institute laboratories. Credit: Adrienne Surprenant/Bloomberg/Getty

The United States is the most prolific publisher of high-quality natural-sciences research in the Nature Index, but China is closing the gap with remarkable speed (see Graphic).

In the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables , the United States’ Share is 20,152.48, which represents a 4.2% decrease in adjusted output from the previous year. China’s Share, on the other hand, jumped from 11,372.26 to 13,566.11 over the same period, a 15.4% increase. See the 2020 Annual Tables Top 100 countries for 2019 .

(Share, formerly referred to in the Nature Index as Fractional Count (FC), is a measure of an entity’s contribution to articles in the 82 journals tracked by the index, calculated according to the proportion of its affiliated authors on an article relative to all authors on the article. When comparing data over time, Share values are adjusted to 2019 levels to account for the small annual variation in the total number of articles in the Nature Index journals. The Nature Index is one indicator of research performance. See Editor’s note below.)

Source: Nature Index

1. United States

Share: 20,152.48; Count: 28,403; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −4.2%

The United States’ Share in the Nature Index was marginally down in 2019, but it continues to be bolstered by its top-performing institutes: Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Stanford University in Stanford, California; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and the National Institutes of Health.

The life sciences accounts for almost 50% of the nation’s Share in the natural sciences. In 2019, the biggest collaborative partners of the United States were China, the United Kingdom and Germany; smaller countries, Australia and Switzerland, also made it into its top 10 collaborators list.

In the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables , the United States topped the rankings in the life, physical, and Earth and environmental sciences.

Share: 13,566.11; Count: 18,026; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): +15.4%

China is the second strongest and the fastest-rising country in the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables .

Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables

Although chemistry accounts for more than 50% of China’s output in the Nature Index, the physical sciences are also a major strength.

The country’s top performing institutions across all natural-sciences disciplines are the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Peking University in Beijing, Tsinghua University in Beijing, and Nanjing University in Nanjing, all of which fall within the top 25 of global institutions in the Nature Index.

In the 2020 Annual Tables, China topped the rankings in chemistry.

Share: 4,545.70; Count: 8,770; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −4.1%

With two institutions among the Nature Index top 10 global institutions, Germany is a force in high-quality research publishing.

Its most prolific institution in the Nature Index, the Max Planck Society, based in Munich, featured in the top 5 in the physical sciences, chemistry and life-sciences categories in the 2020 Annual Tables, and placed third overall.

Germany hosts more than 1,000 publicly funded research institutions and around 400 higher-education institutions, which contribute to its status as a desired destination for researchers . It also boasts a relatively low cost of living, stable growth, and high research and development (R&D) spending.

4. United Kingdom

Share: 3,773.66; Count: 7,837; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −2.7%

As Nature reported in January , Brexit has already disrupted research in the United Kingdom. That said, the country remains one of the world’s best in producing high-quality research in the natural sciences, retaining its long-standing fourth rank in the Nature Index Top 50 Countries/Territories table.

The United Kingdom’s top institutions in the Nature Index include the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, which are ranked in the top 25 global institutions in the 2020 Annual Tables, and Imperial College London and University College London, which are ranked 48th and 50th, respectively.

Its top collaborators in 2019 were the United States, Germany and China, and the life sciences is its strongest subject in the Nature Index.

Share: 3,024.32; Count: 4,905; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −5.1%

Japan is working hard to retain its position in the global research ranks. As Nature Index reported in 2019, its strategy of funding selected institutions to boost their overseas collaboration has begun to bear fruit, as the nation continues to look outwards in an effort to arrest the decline in its high-quality scientific research output.

Japan’s top-performing institutes are the University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Osaka University and the Tokyo Institute of Technology.

Japan’s research performance was the focus of a 2019 Nature Index supplement , which revealed an increase in its proportion of articles co-authored with international researchers. However, correcting the slide in its Share is proving difficult for the nation.

Share: 2,238.55; Count: 5,054; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −1.6%

France’s strengths in the natural sciences are diverse, with chemistry, physical sciences and life sciences accounting for roughly equal shares in its high-quality research output, followed by Earth and environmental sciences.

In 2019, its highest-performing institute, the government’s French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in Paris (ranked fourth overall in the 2020 Annual Tables), had more than six times the Share of its second-highest performing institute, Sorbonne University (ranked 127th), also based in Paris.

The CNRS is not only France’s premier research institute, it also shines on the world stage, ranking highly in the physical sciences, Earth and environmental sciences, and chemistry in the 2020 Annual Tables.

Share: 1,602.09; Count: 3,408; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −4.4%

Canada is one of a number of high-ranking countries that saw a downturn in Share in the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables , but it has held seventh place consistently since 2015.

Among the nation’s top-performing institutions are the University of Toronto, McGill University in Montreal, and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Its most favoured research partners in 2019 were the United States, China and the United Kingdom.

Between 2017 and 2018, Canadian universities received an influx of international students and researchers, with the number of students from overseas increasing by 1.9% in just one year. At the University of Toronto, 21.3% of all students were international students in the 2017–18 enrolment year.

8. Switzerland

Share: 1,487.88; Count: 3,270; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): +1.2%

For a nation of just 8.4 million people, Switzerland’s high-quality research output is impressive. In the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables , it is the seventh fastest rising country in the world.

The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH Zurich) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne (EPFL) are the nation’s top-performing institutions in the Nature Index.

Switzerland is also home to F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Novartis International, both based in Basel, which are the top performing corporate institutions in the Nature Index for biomedical sciences.

9. South Korea

Share: 1,435.23; Count: 2,419; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): +2.8%

South Korea is one of the most innovative countries in the world, according to the Global Innovation Index. It spends 4.3% of its gross domestic product on R&D.

In the Nature Index it is a major player in chemistry and the physical sciences , which together make up more than 95% of its total Share.

South Korea’s biggest collaborative partners in 2019 were the United States, China and Japan. The Seoul National University and the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejeon are its top performers in the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables .

10. Australia

Share: 1,259.95; Count: 2,986; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): −2.8%

Australia has maintained its position as the tenth biggest producer of natural-sciences research in the Nature Index for two consecutive years.

The country’s output by subject is fairly evenly spread, although the life sciences contributed the most to its overall Share in the Nature Index.

Monash University in Melbourne is the best-performing Australian institution in terms of output in the 82 selected journals tracked by the Nature Index, followed by the University of New South Wales in Sydney and the University of Queensland in Brisbane.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01231-w

This article is part of Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content.

Editor’s note: The Nature Index is one indicator of institutional research performance. The metrics of Count and Share used to order Nature Index listings are based on an institution’s or country’s publication output in 82 natural-science journals, selected on reputation by an independent panel of leading scientists in their fields. Nature Index recognizes that many other factors must be taken into account when considering research quality and institutional performance; Nature Index metrics alone should not be used to assess institutions or individuals. Nature Index data and methods are transparent and available under a creative commons licence at natureindex.com .

Related Articles

Partner content: The right environment for achievement

Standardized metadata for biological samples could unlock the potential of collections

Correspondence 14 MAY 24

A guide to the Nature Index

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Decoding chromatin states by proteomic profiling of nucleosome readers

Article 06 MAR 24

Who will make AlphaFold3 open source? Scientists race to crack AI model

News 23 MAY 24

Egypt is building a $1-billion mega-museum. Will it bring Egyptology home?

News Feature 22 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

Full Professorship (W3) in “Organic Environmental Geochemistry (f/m/d)

The Institute of Earth Sciences within the Faculty of Chemistry and Earth Sciences at Heidelberg University invites applications for a   FULL PROFE...

Heidelberg, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Heidelberg

Postdoc: deep learning for super-resolution microscopy

The Ries lab is looking for a PostDoc with background in machine learning.

Vienna, Austria

University of Vienna

Postdoc: development of a novel MINFLUX microscope

The Ries lab is developing super-resolution microscopy methods for structural cell biology. In this project we will develop a fast, simple, and robust

Postdoctoral scholarship in Structural biology of neurodegeneration

A 2-year fellowship in multidisciplinary project combining molecular, structural and cell biology approaches to understand neurodegenerative disease

Umeå, Sweden

Umeå University

Group Leader (Microbes and Food Safety)

Full or Part Time We are looking for a dynamic, proactive individual to lead a research programme contributing to our goals of reducing foodborne i...

Norwich, Norfolk

Quadram Institute Bioscience

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

International Funding

While most of the research enterprise at UC Berkeley is funded by the U.S. federal agencies, there are funding opportunities for U.S.-based researchers from international funding agencies as well. Many of those are awarded to researchers in the countries where the funding comes from with U.S. researchers serving as collaborators, while others may fund U.S. researchers conducting research in the country of funding. In addition, there are collaborative programs between international agencies and U.S. agencies. The following list is a non-exhaustive list of international funding agencies, as well as some specific funding opportunities offered by them, and should be taken as an example of the type of opportunities available for U.S.-based researchers.  Pivot  can be used to search for international funding opportunities, as well as domestic ones. Please  reach out to BRDO  to discuss any of these agencies and/or specific opportunities further, or if you would like to recommend additional agencies/opportunities to add. 

• Horizon Europe

Horizon Europe  is the European Union’s key funding program for research, with a annual budget of $100B. While most of its funding is destined for researchers based in the EU, many funding programs can include international researchers as partners in research consortia submitting collaborative research proposals. Horizon Europe funds research in many thematic areas, including health, inclusive societies, civil security, digital industry & space, climate, food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture & environment.

Please see here for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions , the European Union’s program for doctoral education and postdoctoral training.

• European Network of Research and Innovation Centers and Hubs (ENRICH)

ENRICH was launched under Horizon to provide collaboration and commercialization support services to European researchers in other countries, including the US.  ENRICH in the USA  has programs which target various research- and market-oriented concepts at commercially-viable technology maturity levels.

• European Research Council (ERC)

The European Research Council is the European Union’s funding program for key frontier research in all fields, with an annual budget of $17B.  Researchers from anywhere  in the world can apply for ERC grants, provided the research they undertake will be carried out in the EU. 

• Research Collaboration Opportunity in Europe for NSF Recipients

NSF and ERC have signed an agreement to enable U.S.-based scientists and engineers with active NSF awards, particularly those early in their careers, to pursue research collaboration with European colleagues supported through EU-funded ERC grants.

• German Research Foundation (DFG)

The German Research Foundation is the research funding agency of Germany, with an annual budget of $4B. It accepts proposals with  international participation  within its entire portfolio. It maintains 3  U.S. offices , including one in San Francisco. See  here  for more information on international programs.

Swissnex is Switzerland's global network for education, research and innovation. It maintains a local office in San Francisco. See here for their academic programs, fostering international exchange.

• Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) funds the advancement of science in all fields of the natural and social sciences and the humanities, with an annual budget of $1.8B. The  JSPS International Fellowships for Research in Japan  consists of two programs: "Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research in Japan” for young researchers and “Invitational Fellowships for Research in Japan” for mid-career and senior researchers.

• UK Research & Innovation (UKRI)

UKRI is the United Kingdom government’s body that directs research and innovation funding and it includes seven Research Councils, including the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and others. Its annual funding exceeds $11B. UKRI funds  international research  for international researchers who want to work in the UK, as well as for international researchers who want to collaborate with UK researchers.

• NSF NRT US-Ireland Student Mobility Program

Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) is the Irish government’s agency funding basic and applied research in STEM with an annual budget of over $215M. NSF works with SFI to offer supplemental funding to support NRT trainees to pursue additional training in Ireland. This supplemental funding opportunity supports graduate students in research-based master's and doctoral degree programs to develop the skills, knowledge, and competencies needed to pursue a range of STEM careers.  This opportunity  is open only to organizations with active NRT awards that have completed the first year of their award and are not in a no-cost extension year .

Researchers seeking international funding should ensure they are in compliance with UC Berkeley policies on financial transcactions with embargoed or otherwise resctricted destinations, organizations or individuals, as defined by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS

Research and development: u.s. trends and international comparisons.

• Report PDF (808 KB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (5.2 MB)
• Supplemental Materials - All Formats .ZIP (513 KB)
• MORE DOWNLOADS OPTIONS
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Introduction

This report analyzes research and experimental development (R&D) trends in the United States and internationally. R&D refers to creative and systematic work aimed at increasing the stock of knowledge and is broken down into three categories: basic research, applied research, and experimental development (Moris and Pece 2022; OECD 2015). The Glossary section of this report summarizes key definitions.

R&D and other intangibles or intellectual property products (IPPs), such as software investment, contribute to innovation, output and productivity growth, competitiveness, and public policy goals across countries—from defense, cybersecurity, and information infrastructure to sustainable energy, environmental protection, and health (Baily, Bosworth, and Doshi 2020; CRS 2020a; NASEM 2020; Pece 2023b; OECD 2023d, 2023h). The COVID-19 pandemic impacted global science by highlighting the importance of resiliency and security in domestic and international global research networks (OECD 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d).

In the private sector, R&D is also a leading component of global value chains (GVCs) for industries at the forefront of advanced manufacturing, emerging and critical technologies, and high-technology services across the globe. International production arrangements and global R&D networks, built over the past decades (Kano, Tsang, and Yeung 2020; Papanastassiou, Pearce, and Zanfei 2020), have been challenged by pandemic-related and geopolitical factors that are impacting the organization of international R&D and economic activity and the role of critical or emerging technologies (IMF 2023; OECD 2023e).

This report is organized into four sections. The first covers U.S. R&D across the major performing and funding sectors, followed by a section on international comparisons. The last two sections focus on business R&D and federal R&D. The report also includes new information on semiconductor and other critical or emerging technologies R&D that feeds into business high-technology supply chains and public policy goals (CRS 2022a, 2022b; USG 2023).

Related Science and Engineering Indicators 2024 reports include “ Academic Research and Development ” and the forthcoming “The STEM Labor Force: Scientists, Engineers, and Skilled Technical Workers.” Three other related reports focus on production supply chains and other post-R&D activities: “ Publications Output: U.S. Trends and International Comparisons ,” “ Invention, Knowledge Transfer, and Innovation ,” and “ Production and Trade of Knowledge- and Technology-Intensive Industries .”

The principal data sources of this report are surveys and the National Patterns of R&D Resources (henceforth, National Patterns) database (NCSES 2024) from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), National Science Foundation (NSF). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Main Science and Technology Indicators (MSTI) database (OECD 2023c) is the source for international R&D statistics. All amounts are reported in U.S. current dollars unless otherwise noted. All years are calendar years unless otherwise noted.

Related Content

Understanding the BRAIN Initiative Budget

Each year, the National Institutes of Health’s Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies ® Initiative, or The BRAIN Initiative®, receives its budget from the United States Congress. The NIH BRAIN Initiative is made up of, and managed by, 10 Institutes and Centers (IC) at NIH, whose missions and current research portfolios both complement and benefit from the goals of the BRAIN Initiative.

The NIH BRAIN Initiative is funded by Congress from two streams:

• As line items in the budgets of the 10 BRAIN Initiative ICs . This is known as the base allocation.
• From funding authorized by the 21st Century Cures Act . The Cures Act funding is a congressional supplement signed into law in 2016 and designed to boost key innovation programs, such as the BRAIN Initiative, with predetermined, varying annual amounts starting in fiscal year (FY) 2017 and ending in FY 2026.

Frequently Asked Questions

Below are answers to both general questions we have received about the NIH BRAIN Initiative's budget and questions specifically for researchers. We will continue to update the community as new information becomes available.

About the NIH BRAIN Initiative budget

How does FY 2024 funding compare to previous years? The FY 2024 budget was passed by  Congress and signed by the President in March. The budget includes $402 million for the BRAIN Initiative. This represents a $278 million decrease from the FY 2023 appropriation of $680 million, due to an anticipated drop in 21st Century Cures Act funding and a decrease in the BRAIN Initiative’s base allocation. To further explain: 21st Century Cures Act authorization jumped from $152 million in FY 2022 to $450 million in FY 2023, representing an increase of $298 million. In FY 2023, Congress reduced the NIH BRAIN Initiative’s base allocation by $238 million, bringing it down to $230 million. BRAIN’s total allocation for FY 2023 still reflected a $60 million increase, from $620 million to $680 million ($450 million from 21st Century Cures Act plus $230 million in base funding). In FY 2024 (current year funding), the base allocation remained flat at $230 million and the 21st Century Cures Act funds dropped to $172 million (as determined in advance), resulting in a total allocation of $402 million for BRAIN, or 40% less than the FY 2023 budget. What are the NIH BRAIN Initiative’s research priorities? NIH BRAIN Initiative projects span a range of disciplines, each one embodying what remains central to the Initiative—inclusive, collaborative, open, and ethical neuroscience. BRAIN Initiative research results to date have allowed us to measure both brain function and brain dysfunction much more precisely, which provides a path to new precision treatments that can be tested in individuals with brain disorders. High-priority projects will continue to focus on platform tools, technologies, and other resources that will accelerate discovery across the NIH neuroscience portfolio. Looking ahead, BRAIN will be placing an emphasis on: Investing in the development and training of early-stage investigators; Building a sustainable future for three large-scale, transformative projects known as the BRAIN Initiative Cell Atlas Network (BICAN), the BRAIN Initiative Connectivity Across Scales program (BRAIN CONNECTS), and the Armamentarium for Precision Brain Cell Access; and Establishing the Brain Behavior Quantification and Synchronization  (BBQS) program, which aims to define how the brain controls behavior. Based on the decrease in BRAIN funding for FY 2024, are there specific areas of research that will be more affected than others? We are looking closely at all of our programs and will make decisions about areas we can curtail that will have the least impact on the momentum we’ve built over the past decade. When could more funding get appropriated to the NIH BRAIN Initiative? Funds are provided to the BRAIN Initiative on an annual basis by Congress. We will know the level of funding once the budget for FY 2025 is enacted. This budget would cover Oct. 1, 2024 – September 30, 2025.

What happens to the BRAIN Initiative after 21st Century Cures Act money runs out in FY2026?  

We are grateful for Congress’s support of the BRAIN Initiative since it launched in 2014. While Cures Act funding expires after FY2026, the NIH BRAIN Initiative will continue to fund groundbreaking research as long as Congress continues to provide base funding to the 10 BRAIN Institutes and Centers in the annual appropriations process. The level of funding will determine the size and scope of the program. 

For researchers

I’m planning to submit an application for an upcoming receipt date for a BRAIN funding announcement; should I still submit it? The BRAIN Initiative continues to fund highly meritorious grant applications. However, our current budget requires us to be even more selective in supporting applications for funding. Current NIH BRAIN Initiative funding opportunities can be found on the BRAIN Initiative website ; potential applicants should check here before preparing an application for BRAIN funding. As always, we encourage applicants to follow and search the NIH Guide to find funding opportunities that best fit their proposed projects. Parent announcement mechanisms may be good options; we encourage applicants to speak with NIH program staff to discuss their options for securing competitive federal funding to support their research. My application scored well; will it be funded? All applications received in response to a BRAIN Initiative funding opportunity are reviewed for scientific and technical merit by scientific peer review. Well-scoring applications are then prioritized for funding, based on relevance of the proposed project to NIH program priorities, including the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) and the availability of funds. However, the only way to definitively know if an application has been funded is through the issuance of a Notice of Award. Applicants are encouraged to reach out to NIH program staff with further questions. Are you still funding supplements? Is it worth submitting an application? The BRAIN Initiative will consider highly meritorious supplement applications including administrative , diversity , re-entry/re-integration/re-training, and continuity supplements . I am a multiple principal investigator/principal investigator on an active BRAIN award; will the budget be reduced? It depends. Active non-competing BRAIN Initiative awards will be subject to a 10% budget reduction for FY 2024. This reduction in funds does not apply to the following activities: F99, F32, K00, K99, R21, R25, R34, SBIR / STTR , and diversity supplements. Due to the budget reduction, I’m unable to complete my project as planned; can I renegotiate my milestones or aims? With some budget reductions, you may need to revise the scope of your project. In some circumstances, this may require prior approval from the NIH . Please reach out to your NIH program officer to discuss this process and the available options.

Have any actions been taken to cancel existing funding opportunities or receipt dates?

In this fiscal year (FY24), the BRAIN Initiative received a 40% decrease to its budget. This not only impacts our ability to support grants in FY24, but into the next fiscal year as well. The Office of the BRAIN Director and BRAIN Initiative team members have examined current and pending funding opportunities. The table below outlines the actions we’ve taken to cancel funding opportunities and receipt dates managed by the National Eye Institute, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Related Topics Recent Director’s Messages Announcing Yearly Appropriations Funding neuroscience in an uncertain budget climate (FY 2024) Congress passes budget bill: NIH BRAIN Initiative receives $60M in additional funds (FY 2023) Congress passes budget bill: NIH BRAIN Initiative receives $60M in additional funds (FY 2022) Congress passes budget bill: NIH BRAIN Initiative receives $60M in additional funds (FY 2021)

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Document Library sub navigation

• All Documents
• National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES)
• Obtaining Documents
• Search Documents
• Document Library

EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement-Focused EPSCoR Collaborations Program (RII-FEC)

For more information about file formats used on the NSF site, please see the Plug-ins and Viewers page.

The prevalence and factors associated with alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use among adolescents in 25 African countries: evidence from Global School-Based Health Surveys

• Find this author on Google Scholar
• Find this author on PubMed
• Search for this author on this site
• ORCID record for Retselisitsoe Pokothoane
• For correspondence: [email protected]
• ORCID record for Terefe Gelibo Agerfa
• ORCID record for Noreen Dadirai Mdege
• Info/History
• Supplementary material
• Preview PDF

ABSTRACT Objectives: To provide first comprehensive estimates of the prevalence of psychoactive substances: alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana and their associated factors among school-going adolescents in 25 African countries, and thereby contribute to the evidence base of substance use in Africa. Methods: We use the publicly available Global School-Based Health Survey (GSHS) data from 25 African countries collected between 2003 and 2017. We used descriptive statistics to estimate the prevalence of alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use as well as their dual use among adolescents aged 11-16 years. Additionally, we used logistic regressions to model factors associated with the use of each substance, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the measures of association. Results: The prevalence of alcohol use among African adolescents was 10.6% [95% CI = 9.6, 11.8], that for cigarette smoking was 6.9% [95% CI: 6.1, 7.8], and it was 3.8% [95% CI: 3.2, 4.4] for marijuana. The prevalence of dual use of alcohol and cigarettes was 1.5% [95% CI: 1.2, 1.9], that of alcohol and marijuana was 0.9% [95% CI: 0.7, 1.1], and it was 0.8% [95% CI: 0.6, 1.0] for cigarettes and marijuana. The prevalence of cigarette smoking was significantly higher among boys than girls, but that of alcohol and marijuana was insignificant. The use of alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana was associated with the West African region, higher-income country group, having parents that smoke any tobacco products, being bullied, missing classes without permission, and experiencing sadness and hopelessness in the previous month were positively associated with being a current user of these products. Conclusions: Africa should invest in data collection on substance use among adolescents who are in and out of school. At both primary and secondary school levels, African countries should develop mentorship and other interventions that fuel positivity and discourage bad practices among students to ultimately reduce substance use.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-048743).

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Data Availability

All the datasets are publicly available

https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/surveillance/systems-tools/global-school-based-student-health-survey

View the discussion thread.

Supplementary Material

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Citation Manager Formats

• EndNote (tagged)
• EndNote 8 (xml)
• RefWorks Tagged
• Ref Manager
• Tweet Widget
• Facebook Like
• Google Plus One
• Addiction Medicine (324)
• Allergy and Immunology (631)
• Anesthesia (167)
• Cardiovascular Medicine (2395)
• Dentistry and Oral Medicine (289)
• Dermatology (207)
• Emergency Medicine (380)
• Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (845)
• Epidemiology (11788)
• Forensic Medicine (10)
• Gastroenterology (704)
• Genetic and Genomic Medicine (3761)
• Geriatric Medicine (350)
• Health Economics (636)
• Health Informatics (2406)
• Health Policy (936)
• Health Systems and Quality Improvement (902)
• Hematology (342)
• HIV/AIDS (784)
• Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (13336)
• Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (769)
• Medical Education (366)
• Medical Ethics (105)
• Nephrology (401)
• Neurology (3521)
• Nursing (199)
• Nutrition (528)
• Obstetrics and Gynecology (677)
• Occupational and Environmental Health (666)
• Oncology (1828)
• Ophthalmology (538)
• Orthopedics (219)
• Otolaryngology (287)
• Pain Medicine (234)
• Palliative Medicine (66)
• Pathology (447)
• Pediatrics (1035)
• Pharmacology and Therapeutics (426)
• Primary Care Research (424)
• Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (3186)
• Public and Global Health (6168)
• Radiology and Imaging (1286)
• Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (750)
• Respiratory Medicine (831)
• Rheumatology (379)
• Sexual and Reproductive Health (372)
• Sports Medicine (324)
• Surgery (403)
• Toxicology (50)
• Transplantation (172)
• Urology (147)