首页> 外文期刊>Research evaluation >Funding decisions, peer review, and scientific excellence in physical sciences, chemistry, and geosciences
【24h】

Funding decisions, peer review, and scientific excellence in physical sciences, chemistry, and geosciences

机译:资助决策,同行评审以及物理科学,化学和地球科学方面的科学成就

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This article presents an analysis of the funding policies of three research councils at the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). The key issue is the extent to which these three councils recognized scientific excellence, and particularly, whether they succeeded in rewarding the grants of the most successful and influential researchers. Data on grant applications provided by NWO for the time period 2000-4 were combined with bibliometric indicators of past research performance of applicants and non-applicants derived from Thomson Reuters' Web of Science. It is found that the three councils did support scientific excellence, in the following sense. Firstly, they tend to attract research proposals from the better groups in the fields they cover. Secondly, the applicants whose submitted proposals were granted-and the research groups they represent-tend to generate a higher citation impact at their international research fronts than those whose submissions were rejected. Although there are some differences in the outcomes among the three councils, this conclusion is valid for each council. On the other hand, for applicants with more than three granted applications we observed a rather variable pattern: in one council these performed at the same level as researchers whose applications were all rejected; in another council these applicants outperformed the rejected applicants; and in another council the number of applicants with more than three granted applications was very small.
机译:本文对荷兰科学研究组织(NWO)的三个研究委员会的资助政策进行了分析。关键问题是这三个委员会在多大程度上认可科学卓越性,特别是它们是否成功地奖励了最成功和最有影响力的研究人员的资助。 NWO在2000-4期间提供的赠款申请数据与来自汤姆森路透社Web of Science的申请人和非申请人过去研究绩效的文献计量指标结合在一起。发现三个理事会确实在以下意义上支持科学卓越。首先,他们倾向于吸引他们所涵盖领域中的优秀团体的研究建议。其次,提交提案的申请者被批准,他们代表的研究组倾向于在国际研究领域产生比被拒绝提交者更高的引文影响。尽管三个理事会的结果有所不同,但该结论对每个理事会均有效。另一方面,对于具有三个以上已批准申请的申请人,我们观察到了一个相当可变的模式:在一个理事会中,这些申请的表现与被全部拒绝的研究人员处于同一水平;在另一个理事会中,这些申请人的表现优于被拒绝的申请人;在另一个理事会中,获得三份以上批准申请的申请人数量很少。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号