共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
《Research Policy》2023,52(3):104707
In their Discussion Paper, Franzoni and Stephan (F&S, 2023) discuss the shortcomings of existing peer review models in shaping the funding of risky science. Their discussion offers a conceptual framework for incorporating risk into peer review models of research proposals by leveraging the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) approach to decouple reviewers' assessments of a project's potential value from its risk. In my Response, I build on F&S's discussion and attempt to shed light on three additional yet core considerations of risk in science: 1) how risk and reward in science are related to assessments of a project's novelty and feasibility; 2) how the sunk cost literature can help articulate why reviewers tend to perceive new research areas as riskier than continued investigation of existing lines of research; and 3) how drawing on different types of expert reviewers (i.e., based on domain and technical expertise) can result in alternative evaluation assessments to better inform resource allocation decisions. The spirit of my Response is to sharpen our understanding of risk in science and to offer insights on how future theoretical and empirical work—leveraging experiments— can test and validate the SEU approach for the purposes of funding more risky science that advances the knowledge frontier. 相似文献
2.
In many countries the scientific funding system is shifting from an internal block funding model toward a competitive project funding model. However, there is growing concern that the competitive project funding system favors relatively safe, conventional projects at the expense of risky, novel research. It is important to assess different funding models in order to design better funding systems for science. This paper empirically tests for differences in the novelty of funded outputs between internal block funding and competitive project funding, in the setting of Japan, where both funding models play a significant role. Combining survey data from a large sample of research projects in Japan and bibliometric information about the publications produced from these projects, we find that projects funded by competitive funds on average have higher novelty compared to those funded by internal block funds. However, such positive effects only hold for researchers with high status, such as senior and male researchers. In contrast, compared to internal block funding, competitive project funding has a negative relation to novelty for low status scientists (especially junior and female researchers). The findings suggest that the competitive project selection procedure is less receptive to novel ideas from researchers with low academic status and therefore discourages their novel research. These findings can serve as a warning about potential biases in competitive funding allocation procedures and suggest the importance of secure stable funding for allowing researchers with low status to pursue their novel ideas. 相似文献
3.
Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Both funding agencies and scholars in science studies have become increasingly concerned with how to define and identify interdisciplinarity in research. The task is tricky, since the complexity of interdisciplinary research defies a single definition. Our study tackles this challenge by demonstrating a new typology and qualitative indicators for analyzing interdisciplinarity in research documents. The proposed conceptual framework attempts to fulfill the need for a robust and nuanced approach that is grounded in deeper knowledge of interdisciplinarity. As an example of using the framework, we discuss our empirical investigation of research proposals funded by a national funding agency in Finland. 相似文献
4.
将我国国家自然科学基金资助体系中的创新研究群体项目绩效评价工作分为评价筹备、函评会评和绩效评价报告撰写修订发布阶段,以2015年度创新研究群体项目绩效评价为例,梳理分析其工作流程和具体实施情况等相关工作内容.创新研究群体项目具有前沿探索与人才培养双重属性,同时还具有资助力度大、周期长以及考核宽松等特点,相关绩效评价工作结合该类项目特性,基于同行评议和评价指标体系(包括抽查项目与总体项目评价)设计,取得以《国家自然科学基金2015年度绩效报告》为精简版主报告在内的3份研究报告.研究结果提示开展科技项目评价要注重项目的 特质与要求,根据国家发展相关战略部署和要求不断改革、规范与优化流程管理,并注重开展同行评议,不断拓展科技评价的范式与边界,以促进科研项目科学合理与平稳有序发展,并促进提升我国科技评价工作水平. 相似文献
5.
Lendie Follett Simon Geletta Marcia Laugerman 《Information processing & management》2019,56(3):516-525
Clinical trials that terminate prematurely without reaching conclusions raise financial, ethical, and scientific concerns. Scientific studies in all disciplines are initiated with extensive planning and deliberation, often by a team of highly trained scientists. To assure that the quality, integrity, and feasibility of funded research projects meet the required standards, research-funding agencies such as the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, pass proposed research plans through a rigorous peer review process before making funding decisions. Yet, some study proposals successfully pass through all the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific peer review process, but the proposed investigations end up being terminated before yielding results. This study demonstrates an algorithm that quantifies the risk associated with a study being terminated based on the analysis of patterns in the language used to describe the study prior to its implementation. To quantify the risk of termination, we use data from the clinicialTrials.gov repository, from which we extracted structured data that flagged study characteristics, and unstructured text data that described the study goals, objectives and methods in a standard narrative form. We propose an algorithm to extract distinctive words from this unstructured text data that are most frequently used to describe trials that were completed successfully vs. those that were terminated. Binary variables indicating the presence of these distinctive words in trial proposals are used as input in a random forest, along with standard structured data fields. In this paper, we demonstrate that this combined modeling approach yields robust predictive probabilities in terms of both sensitivity (0.56) and specificity (0.71), relative to a model that utilizes the structured data alone (sensitivity = 0.03, specificity = 0.97). These predictive probabilities can be applied to make judgements about a trial's feasibility using information that is available before any funding is granted. 相似文献
6.
航天研制项目通常是复杂系统工程,具有研制周期长、参研单位性质多样、不确定因素多、经费预算调整难度大、研制和经费管控的不可预测性高等特点,本文针对国内外航天研制项目经费管理存在的问题和相关研究的缺陷,以航天研制项目过程中经费风险监控与处置问题为对象,研究建立全过程经费风险评估模型与风险评估体系,以及经费风险因素的有效识别、评估方法和管控措施。首先,在分析航天研制项目特点和风险管控内容的基础上,识别和详尽分析了航天研制项目包含的技术设计、研制生产、管理决策、人力资源和研制环境等五项经费风险因素,建立了航天研制项目全过程经费风险评估体系。然后,基于经费管控过程分析法,提出由风险设计、风险识别、风险分析、风险措施以及风险监控等模块组成的风险管控模型,这五个模块既相对独立又内在关联。随后,以确保航天项目成功研制条件下的经费风险控制成本最低为目标,研究提出并详细说明了航天项目研制过程中基于模型的经费风险规避、转移、缓解、利用等管控方法,详尽探讨了系统化管控、标准化管控、防御策划、人力激发和预警系统等具体经费风险管控措施,详细分析了风险因素、风险识别、处置方法和管控措施的对应关系,研究表明：这些措施与风险模型中的风险识别模块关联性最强。最后,结合嫦娥四号中继星——“鹊桥”项目的经费管控案例,介绍了项目特点、主要管控措施和管控成效,验证了本文所提经费风险管控措施的正确性和有效性。本文研究结论认为,风险设计是实现经费风险管控中的核心部分,只有在精准地实现了风险识别的前提下,管控措施才能得以顺利运行。本文研究成果在具体项目中实践得到了两个重要启示：一是航天项目经费管控要置前行动,在实施过程中要前移;二是在体系化的管理中,要重视风险设计的迭代、循环分析。本文研究成果及其在实践中的使用验证,充分表明了本文研究对未来项目特别是航天项目有效管理,具有重要现实意义和工程价值。 相似文献
7.
高等学校是人文社科重要的研究力量,并承担了大量的科研项目。但是我国理工科高校人文社科研究项目绩效评估中存在很多不足,导致项目评估结果不准确,不能客观反映出实际科研效果。通过对理工科高校人文社科研究项目绩效评估中的不足进行分析,与国外高校先进经验比较,发现问题,结合我国实际情况,提出建议,改进不足,促进高校人文社科研究项目绩效评估的发展。 相似文献
8.
针对国家科技计划在"十三五"期间改革后形成的5类计划之一的重点研发计划,基于2016-2019年9月完成的3批立项项目有关信息,从不同领域立项数和立项资助金额、牵头承担单位、立项区域分布等层面进行对比分析.结果 发现:国家对重点研发计划项目资助的力度和强度,除了基础配套领域,其他领域每年都有新的类型资助项目增加,社会环境领域项目数和经费数每年都排第一,高新技术领域次之,基础研究领域的重点专项投入最少,农业科技领域重点专项的投入不多且年均下降幅度最大,基础研究、农业科技领域的立项数和经费数明显低于前两个领域;与科研院所、企业相比,高校牵头承担项目数最多,项目平均经费却最低,这与高校牵头基础研究领域项目最多有一定关系,科研院所项目的 总经费和平均经费最高,企业的某单项经费最高;资助项目多数分布在北京、上海、广东、江苏等经济发达地区,北京的项目数约是排第二的上海的四倍.基于研究结果,对重点研发计划管理提出充分发挥产学研协同创新效应、促进区域间互补协调发展、深挖牵头承担单位潜能等建议,同时对国家科技计划管理提出加强顶层设计、提高研发起点和评审层次、引领科技发展方向、增设平台咨询服务功能以及以成果转化倒逼高质量实施等对策建议. 相似文献
9.
对“十五”国家社科基金项目的系统分布、时间分布、学科分布、地区分布等进行了调研分析,借以探讨我国社会科学研究的状况。经济学仍然是未来相当长时期内的研究热点,社科研究力量在系统、单位及地区的分布极不均衡,表现出很强的离散态势。国家在制定社科研究规划中,既要考虑重要基地建设,又要考虑其覆盖的范围,应“点”“面”结合,以“点”带“面”。 相似文献
10.
对“十五”国家社科基金项目的系统分布、时间分布、学科分布、地区分布等进行了调研分析，借以探讨我国社会科学研究的状况。经济学仍然是未来相当长时期内的研究热点，社科研究力量在系统、单位及地区的分布极不均衡，表现出很强的离散态势。国家在制定社科研究规划中，既要考虑重要基地建设，又要考虑其覆盖的范围，应“点”“面”结合，以“点”带“面”。 相似文献
11.
近年来深圳市R&D经费快速增长,用于基础研究资金的投入也逐年增加。本文首先综合分析和研究了美国国立卫生研究院(National Institutes of Health,简称NIH)、美国国家科学基金会（National Science Foundation,简称NSF）和国家自然科学基金委（National Science Foundation of China,简称NSFC）的科技项目评审制度和评价体系,在此基础上,结合深圳市的具体情况,将现行的深圳市科技项目评审制度和评价体系同NIH、NSF、NSFC等系统进行比较分析,为改革提供借鉴和参考。随着中国全面深化改革的推进,促进科技发展在社会其他领域尤其是经济领域发挥更大的作用,成为科技体制改革过程中的迫切要求。NIH和NSF的项目采取不定期申报的方式,我国现有的科技项目大部分采用集中期申报方式,两国管理机构赋予管理人员的管理权限不同。深圳市随着R&D经费的快速增长,用于基础研究资金的投入也逐年增加,加强科学研究与教育的紧密结合、把卓越管理的理念切实落到实处是亟需解决的问题。本文的研究将通过研究两国的科技资助管理政策,分析管理机构在制度建设、考核的全面性与连续性、科技信息管理等方面的特点,结合深圳市科技评价体系的发展情况,提出进一步完善科技评价制度政策体系,突出科技评价重点指标,加强科技评价的全面性及连续性的建议。以充分发挥科技评价的指导和引导作用。 相似文献
12.
省级自然科学基金是目前中国地方基础研究最主要的资助途径。本文从管理体制、资助体系、学科领域、项目格局等方面系统分析了中国31个省级自然科学基金的资助现状,并针对当前存在的问题,提出应增加经费投入、促进跨域合作、完善资助体系等政策建议。 相似文献
13.
随着科技投入的增加,政府和公众都期望科学研究对社会发展有更多的贡献,要求在科技项目的评议中考察对社会的影响等相关性内容。以美国国家科学基金会(NSF)为首的科研资助机构率先对评议准则进行了修改,将同行评议扩展为价值评议(Merit Review)。本文以美国NSF的价值评议要点及科学家对此的争论为切入点,分析不同科研资助机构如美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)、美国能源部(DOE)、欧盟框架计划(ECFP)等科技项目评议中有关社会影响方面的评议准则的内涵,对评议专家的要求等内容,并结合我国目前科技项目的评价现状提出了建议。 相似文献
14.
15.
Assessments of quality and productivity of academic research programs become more and more important in gaining financial support, in hiring and promoting research staff, and in building academic reputation. Most assessments are based on peer review or on bibliometric information. In this paper we analyze both bibliometric data and peer review assessments of 169 research groups in economics, econometrics and business administration. The evaluations are achieved in two independent rounds in 1995 and in 2001, permitting replication of our study.The purpose of this study is twofold. In the first part we want to see to what degree bibliometric information relates to peer review judgments. The results convey how evaluators weight different output categories in their final overall judgment of academic quality. The results also have practical meaning, since they indicate what the predictive ability of bibliometric data is for future peer review outcomes. In the second part of this study we aim at explaining differences in research output quality and productivity by organizational factors, like size of the research group, composition of staff, sources of research funding and academic discipline. In this part, a composite indicator is used to represent the review committees’ overall assessment. The bibliometric data most strongly related to the peer reviews’ overall assessment are used to construct data envelopment analyses’ efficiency scores as measure of research productivity.The main conclusions from our study are that the number of publications in international top journals is the best predictor of peer review assessment results. Changes in the classification of bibliometric information, as introduced in the second evaluation round, do not alter this conclusion. Size of the research group appears to be the only permanent characteristic associated with research quality and productivity. Size is positively related to research quality but negatively related to research productivity. Larger groups appear to have the potential to improve quality, but as groups become larger, they also experience problems in maintaining the research productivity of the research team's members. The remaining organizational characteristics appear to be temporarily related to research quality and productivity. In the first evaluation round, research productivity and quality are associated with the discipline variable: research programs in more quantitative areas and characterized by a higher level of paradigm development like econometrics and operations research achieved higher levels of research quality and productivity than programs in more diverse and less quantitative areas like business administration. This relation however is not permanent, since it becomes insignificant in the second evaluation round. Instead, funding relations become more apparent in the second review round. The relative amount of national funding in the research group's funding becomes positively related to academic quality, whereas the portion of income from committed research is negatively related to academic quality of the programs’ research output. This may have been caused by the increased importance of alternative sources of research funding in the period of the second review. 相似文献
16.
17.
科技重大专项具有“重、大、专”特点,对其开展客观公正地绩效评价具有重要的理论和现实意义,但现有研究成果未见循证评估在地方科技重大专项整体资助绩效评价中的应用。本研究以福建省为例,基于循证评估理论,构建了基于“评估议题——关键问题——证据”的科技重大专项整体资助绩效评价框架,综合应用政策文本分析、数理统计和案例研究等评估方法,从战略定位、资助绩效、管理绩效和影响效果等维度进行循证评估。研究结果表明,福建省科技重大专项总体进展顺利,资助体系较为完整,过程管理科学有效,实施成效显著,但仍存在一些不足。最后,针对问题提出了相关对策建议,以期为相关科技政策的制定和完善提供数据支撑和参考依据。 相似文献
18.
This paper analyses how the funding for research grants was allocated from a specific research fund which aimed to support innovative research projects with the potential to have research impact by reducing carbon emissions. The fund received a total of 106 proposals, of which 27 were successful at obtaining financial support. Our aims were to test which factors influenced the funding decision and to discover whether or not and to what extent the fund met its intended objectives through the allocation of monies. The allocation process and its outcomes were analysed using correlation, logistical and linear regression to test our research hypotheses. Using this research funding process as a single study, we found that trying to clear the impact-innovation double hurdle in a single funding initiative ultimately compromises both goals. This paper therefore contributes to our understanding of innovation management within the context of carbon emission reduction and explains which factors influenced success in securing research monies through the funding process. 相似文献
19.
Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
A growing amount of scientific research is done in an open collaborative fashion, in projects sometimes referred to as “crowd science”, “citizen science”, or “networked science”. This paper seeks to gain a more systematic understanding of crowd science and to provide scholars with a conceptual framework and an agenda for future research. First, we briefly present three case examples that span different fields of science and illustrate the heterogeneity concerning what crowd science projects do and how they are organized. Second, we identify two fundamental elements that characterize crowd science projects – open participation and open sharing of intermediate inputs – and distinguish crowd science from other knowledge production regimes such as innovation contests or traditional “Mertonian” science. Third, we explore potential knowledge-related and motivational benefits that crowd science offers over alternative organizational modes, and potential challenges it is likely to face. Drawing on prior research on the organization of problem solving, we also consider for what kinds of tasks particular benefits or challenges are likely to be most pronounced. We conclude by outlining an agenda for future research and by discussing implications for funding agencies and policy makers. 相似文献
20.
借鉴国内外相关机构开展学科评价的理论与方法,选择国家自然科学基金资助的心理学学科领域开展评价,分析我国心理学学科的资助情况、论文产出、资助管理以及发展战略等方面的现状与问题,并提出相应的政策建议。在心理学学科评价案例研究的基础上,提出我国学科评价存在的问题,探讨学科评价的理论与方法,并就我国如何开展学科评价提出建议。 相似文献