Why International Reach Matters to Funders
Grant review panels are asked to judge whether a research program is likely to matter beyond the applicant's own lab. One of the simplest signals that a body of work has real traction is that researchers elsewhere — at other institutions, in other countries — are already building on it. Citation counts alone gesture at this, but a single number says nothing about who is citing you or where they are.
A geographic citation map answers that question at a glance. It plots the institutions whose researchers have cited your work on a world map, built from your public Google Scholar profile. For a reviewer skimming a dense proposal, a map showing adoption across dozens of countries communicates dissemination and uptake faster than a paragraph of prose ever could. It is not a required document for any funder — it is supporting evidence that makes claims about impact concrete and verifiable.
Evidence, Not Assertion
Back 'internationally adopted' with named institutions and countries.
Proposal-Ready Figure
2048×1024 PNG export drops straight into a proposal PDF.
Auditable Data
The CSV of citing institutions backs every claim in your caption.
NSF: Broader Impacts and Results from Prior Support
NSF proposals are evaluated on two merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Both criteria ask, in part, about dissemination — whether results reach and benefit communities beyond the project team. When you describe results from prior NSF support, you are expected to address outcomes under both criteria, and this is where a citation map earns its space: it documents that previously funded work was not just published but actually picked up, across institutions and borders.
A workable figure caption follows the pattern of stating only what the map shows and where the data comes from. For example:
Figure N. Geographic distribution of institutions citing the PI's publications, derived from Google Scholar citation data (citationmap.com, retrieved July 2026). Marker size is proportional to citation count per institution.
Fill in your own country and institution counts from the CSV export rather than estimating — reviewers can check Google Scholar, so the figure should match what they would find. Check the current PAPPG and your solicitation for page limits and figure rules before finalizing placement.
NIH: Contributions to Science and Competing Renewals
The NIH biosketch asks for a "Contributions to Science" narrative — short descriptions of your most significant contributions and their influence on the field. The biosketch format is structured text, so rather than inserting the figure there, use the map's underlying facts in the narrative: name the countries and the kinds of institutions (medical schools, national labs, hospitals) where each contribution has been cited. The CSV export gives you those specifics without hand-collecting them.
The figure itself is most useful in progress reports (RPPR) and competing renewals, where the core question is what came of the prior funding period. A map generated at renewal time — optionally paired with an earlier snapshot — is a compact visual answer: the funded work was disseminated, and uptake spread geographically over the award period.
ERC and Horizon Europe: Track Record and International Standing
ERC applications include a track-record section, and excellence is the sole ERC evaluation criterion — assessed for both the project and the Principal Investigator. Panels look at whether the PI's past research has had recognition and influence in the international community. A citation map is a natural companion to the usual track-record elements (publications, invited talks, funding history) because it visualizes precisely the "international" part: adoption of your results by research groups across Europe, North America, Asia, and beyond.
The same logic applies to Horizon Europe collaborative proposals, where consortia often need to demonstrate the standing of key participants. One map per senior researcher, or one map for the coordinating PI, keeps this concise. As with all funders, treat it as supporting evidence inside the documents the call asks for — never as a substitute for them.
Three Ways to Include the Map
Depending on the funder's format rules, you can bring the map into an application through any of these channels:
- As a figure in the proposal PDF. Export the 2048×1024 PNG and place it where you discuss prior results or dissemination, with a factual caption and data source.
- In the dissemination or data-management narrative. Cite the map's country and institution counts as evidence that your sharing practices (open code, preprints, public datasets) lead to measurable uptake.
- Linked from your lab website. Many applications include a URL for the PI or lab. An embedded, auto-updating interactive map on that page lets curious reviewers explore the data themselves — see the embedding guide for the free iframe widget.
Where the Map Fits, Funder by Funder
| Funder | Where the Map Fits | What It Evidences |
|---|---|---|
| NSF | Broader Impacts narrative; results from prior support | Dissemination and adoption of previously funded work |
| NIH | Contributions to Science facts; RPPR and competing renewals | Influence of contributions; outcomes of the prior funding period |
| ERC | PI track-record section | International recognition and standing of the PI |
| Horizon Europe | Participant profiles / consortium capability description | Standing of key researchers across the consortium |
Step-by-Step: From Scholar Profile to Proposal Figure
Step 1: Generate the map from your Google Scholar profile
Search citationmap.com for your name, select the correct author profile, and the interactive world map of citing institutions is built from your Google Scholar data in seconds.
Step 2: Review the citing-institution list
Scan the map and the institution list for the countries and organizations most relevant to your proposal narrative — international collaborators, adopting labs, or institutions in your funder's priority regions.
Step 3: Export the PNG figure and CSV data
Download the 2048×1024 PNG for use as a proposal figure and the CSV of citing institutions to back any specific counts you cite in the narrative.
Step 4: Write a figure caption tied to your funder's criteria
Caption the figure with plain facts: number of countries, notable adopting institutions, and the source (Google Scholar citation data). Connect it to the section's purpose — dissemination for NSF, contributions to science for NIH, track record for ERC.
Step 5: Place it in the right section of the application
Insert the figure in the Broader Impacts discussion (NSF), reference it from the biosketch or progress report (NIH), or include it in the track-record section (ERC / Horizon Europe). Optionally link an interactive version from your lab website.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Do NSF, NIH, or ERC require a citation map?
- No. No major funder requires a citation map. It is optional supporting evidence — a visual way to document the geographic spread of your work's adoption. Review criteria are about the merit of the proposed work and the applicant's qualifications; a map simply helps you evidence claims like 'our methods have been adopted internationally' with something concrete instead of an unsupported assertion.
- Which section of an NSF proposal should the map go in?
- The most natural fit is the results-from-prior-support discussion or the Broader Impacts narrative in the Project Description, where you describe dissemination and adoption of previous work. It can also support a data management and sharing plan by showing that outputs you shared actually reached a wide audience. Always check the current PAPPG and your program's solicitation for formatting and page-limit rules before adding figures.
- Can I put a citation map in an NIH biosketch?
- The NIH biosketch is a structured document, so a figure usually does not belong inside it. Instead, use the map's underlying facts in the Contributions to Science narrative — for example, naming the countries and institutions where a contribution has been cited — and use the figure itself in progress reports (RPPR) or other application sections where figures are appropriate for your mechanism.
- Is a citation map useful for a competing renewal or progress report?
- Yes, this is one of the strongest use cases. Renewals and progress reports ask what came of the previously funded work. A before-and-after pair of maps, or a single map with a caption noting citation growth over the funding period, is a compact way to show that funded outputs were disseminated and taken up beyond your own institution.
- Where does the data come from, and is the export free?
- The map is built from your public Google Scholar profile and the institutions of the researchers citing your work. Generating the map, the 2048×1024 PNG export, and the CSV of citing institutions are free, and you can also embed a live interactive version on your lab site at no cost.
Beyond the Application
The same map does double duty after submission: pair it with a written citation geography report for annual reviews and promotion files, or start from the basics with our tutorial on how to create a citation map. When you are ready, generate your map — it takes seconds from your Google Scholar profile, and the PNG and CSV exports are free.