G. Cuciureanu, N. Țurcan, I. Cojocaru, Igor Cojocaru
{"title":"优秀或不当行为:团队领导者的可见度如何影响摩尔多瓦共和国的研究项目竞争?","authors":"G. Cuciureanu, N. Țurcan, I. Cojocaru, Igor Cojocaru","doi":"10.15407/scine19.02.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Distributing public funds to the “best” researchers is a key element of the science policy. Evaluation is a fundamental activity for the allocation of competitive funding. The flaws of peer review have led to increased interest in the use of bibliometric indicators for the evaluation of the research project proposals.Problem Statement. The advantajes and advance of bibliometrc is stimulated interest toward the correlation of peer review and applicants’ bibliometric indicators. The results of such studies are different and heterogeneous. Such studies are insufficient in Eastern Europe.Purpose. To establish the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators of project team leaders within the call for research projects in Moldova, which are financed from public funds for 2020—2023.Material and Methods. Statistical correlation of the results of national competition of R&D proposals (evaluation and funding) and the bibliometrics indicators of project team leaders (publications ant patents); analytical analysis of the contextual factors influencing this correlation.Results. The results of the analysis have shown a positive, albeit weak correlation between the scores assigned by experts and the previous performances of leaders. The most significant relation is between the call results and the Hirsh index in Web of Science and Scopus databases. However, the projects proposed by the most cited researchers in WoS and Scopus or the founders of scientific schools did not receive funding.Conclusions. The analysis of the national R&D competition has proved that previous scientific performance of team leaders influenced the evaluation results and the funding of project proposals. However, these dependencies are not linear and seem to be affected by the conflicts of interest and “old boys” schemes. This fact calls for significant changes of the process: ensuring the transparency, the involvement of foreign experts and the use of bibliometric indicators in evaluation.","PeriodicalId":21478,"journal":{"name":"Science and innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Excellence or Misconduct: How the Visibility of Team Leaders Impacts the Research Project Competition in the Republic of Moldova?\",\"authors\":\"G. Cuciureanu, N. Țurcan, I. Cojocaru, Igor Cojocaru\",\"doi\":\"10.15407/scine19.02.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Distributing public funds to the “best” researchers is a key element of the science policy. Evaluation is a fundamental activity for the allocation of competitive funding. The flaws of peer review have led to increased interest in the use of bibliometric indicators for the evaluation of the research project proposals.Problem Statement. The advantajes and advance of bibliometrc is stimulated interest toward the correlation of peer review and applicants’ bibliometric indicators. The results of such studies are different and heterogeneous. Such studies are insufficient in Eastern Europe.Purpose. To establish the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators of project team leaders within the call for research projects in Moldova, which are financed from public funds for 2020—2023.Material and Methods. Statistical correlation of the results of national competition of R&D proposals (evaluation and funding) and the bibliometrics indicators of project team leaders (publications ant patents); analytical analysis of the contextual factors influencing this correlation.Results. The results of the analysis have shown a positive, albeit weak correlation between the scores assigned by experts and the previous performances of leaders. The most significant relation is between the call results and the Hirsh index in Web of Science and Scopus databases. However, the projects proposed by the most cited researchers in WoS and Scopus or the founders of scientific schools did not receive funding.Conclusions. The analysis of the national R&D competition has proved that previous scientific performance of team leaders influenced the evaluation results and the funding of project proposals. However, these dependencies are not linear and seem to be affected by the conflicts of interest and “old boys” schemes. This fact calls for significant changes of the process: ensuring the transparency, the involvement of foreign experts and the use of bibliometric indicators in evaluation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21478,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and innovation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15407/scine19.02.003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/scine19.02.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
介绍将公共资金分配给“最优秀”的研究人员是科学政策的一个关键要素。评价是分配竞争性资金的一项基本活动。同行评审的缺陷导致人们对使用文献计量指标评估研究项目提案的兴趣增加。问题陈述。文献计量学的进步激发了人们对同行评审与申请人文献计量指标相关性的兴趣。这些研究的结果是不同的和异质的。这种研究在东欧是不够的。目的。在摩尔多瓦的研究项目呼吁中,建立项目团队领导人的同行评审和文献计量指标之间的相关性,这些项目由2020-2023年的公共资金资助。材料和方法。全国研发方案竞赛(评审和资助)结果与项目组组长文献计量指标(出版物和专利)的统计相关性;分析影响这种相关性的上下文因素。后果分析结果表明,专家分配的分数与领导者之前的表现之间存在正相关,尽管相关性很弱。最重要的关系是调用结果与Web of Science和Scopus数据库中的Hirsch指数之间的关系。然而,WoS和Scopus中被引用最多的研究人员或科学学校的创始人提出的项目没有得到资助。结论。对全国研发竞赛的分析表明,团队领导以往的科学表现会影响评估结果和项目建议书的资助。然而,这些依赖关系不是线性的,似乎受到利益冲突和“老男孩”计划的影响。这一事实要求对评估过程进行重大变革:确保透明度、外国专家的参与以及在评估中使用文献计量指标。
Excellence or Misconduct: How the Visibility of Team Leaders Impacts the Research Project Competition in the Republic of Moldova?
Introduction. Distributing public funds to the “best” researchers is a key element of the science policy. Evaluation is a fundamental activity for the allocation of competitive funding. The flaws of peer review have led to increased interest in the use of bibliometric indicators for the evaluation of the research project proposals.Problem Statement. The advantajes and advance of bibliometrc is stimulated interest toward the correlation of peer review and applicants’ bibliometric indicators. The results of such studies are different and heterogeneous. Such studies are insufficient in Eastern Europe.Purpose. To establish the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators of project team leaders within the call for research projects in Moldova, which are financed from public funds for 2020—2023.Material and Methods. Statistical correlation of the results of national competition of R&D proposals (evaluation and funding) and the bibliometrics indicators of project team leaders (publications ant patents); analytical analysis of the contextual factors influencing this correlation.Results. The results of the analysis have shown a positive, albeit weak correlation between the scores assigned by experts and the previous performances of leaders. The most significant relation is between the call results and the Hirsh index in Web of Science and Scopus databases. However, the projects proposed by the most cited researchers in WoS and Scopus or the founders of scientific schools did not receive funding.Conclusions. The analysis of the national R&D competition has proved that previous scientific performance of team leaders influenced the evaluation results and the funding of project proposals. However, these dependencies are not linear and seem to be affected by the conflicts of interest and “old boys” schemes. This fact calls for significant changes of the process: ensuring the transparency, the involvement of foreign experts and the use of bibliometric indicators in evaluation.