Search

The ambitions to fund excellent researchers and path-breaking research unite a whole family of funding instruments ranging from Centres of Excellence to individual grants. While instruments aimed at funding excellence share a number of commonalities, there are important subsidiary features which determine their overall efficacy. The paper uses a case study of the Swedish Distinguished Professor Grant (DPG) to investigate the role of subsidiary features in enabling conditions associated with path-breaking research. Interviews were conducted with DPG recipients, to develop an "affordance analysis" identifying how features of the instrument enabled certain researcher actions and opportunities. Results suggest that while long duration and large funds are central to research excellence, the way in which subsidiary features such as reporting, planning and content requirements are structured affect the level of risk-taking. In terms of policy, the paper offers specific and general suggestions for the design of excellence funding instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two methods have been compared for determining the value of natural selection in the natural populations. The first method, based on the FST-statistics, employs the dependence of genetic diversity of a species on the value of gene flow between subpopulations of the species, derived from the assumption that all the mutations are close to selective neutrality, and subpopulations effect each other equally. Susceptibility to selection is estimated by the degree of deviation from this relationship between genetic diversity and gene flow in certain species. The second method is based on the probability theory and involves comparison between stabilities of the forms, competing in the population, which is computed using the data about fluctuations in their occurrence in several generations. As applied to the problems of genetic monitoring of rare and valuable species, the first method can be employed for express-assessment of susceptibility of a species to rapid intraspecific changes. The second method is suitable for a long-term and in-depth genetic monitoring of the species subjected to extremely intense natural selection of a disruptive or stabilizing form, which were revealed using the first method. There is a lack of long-term observations of intraspecific genetic variation of rare and protected species. The need for funds that finance long-term genetic research is substantiated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Financing high-quality journalistic reporting is becoming increasingly difficult worldwide and economic pressure has intensified in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. While numerous alternative funding possibilities are discussed, ranging from membership models to government funding, they should not compromise the highest possible independence of journalism – a premise that also applies to scientific research. Here, the state is involved in funding, but peer review models reduce funding bias. However, systematic approaches as to how established funding models in research could be transferred to journalism are lacking. We attempt such a systematic transfer using the example of the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG). The transfer, based on an analysis of the complex DFG funding structures, was validated in 10 interviews with experts from science, journalism and foundations. Building on this, we developed a concept for a German Journalism Foundation (Deutsche Journalismus-gemeinschaft, DJG), which awards funding to journalists and cooperative projects based on a peer review process. The funding priorities of the proposed organization range from infrastructure support to grants for investigative skills. Thus, unlike other models, it does not focus on funding specific topics in media coverage, but on areas such as innovation support, technology implementation and training. Although the model was designed for Germany, such a systematic transfer could also be tested for other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 20 years of stagnation, federal scholarships have finally been increased within the new budget of the Canadian government. Tuition fees, inflation, and costs of living kept rising, which has resulted a rising number of graduate students in the life sciences living below poverty line, despite working far more than 40 h a week on science research in Canada. This does not only negatively affect the students research projects and thus science and innovation in Canada, but also their downstream decisions on whether to continue a research career in Canada and what jobs and economic endeavors to pursue. Graduate students are not just a line item in the budgets of universities, but integral for science and innovation, as well as the future high-quality personnel of the country. This importance should be reflected in all stipends and salaries of graduate students, not just the ones with a government scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the changes that have occurred in university autonomy and academic freedom in the late Soviet and post-Soviet period from the point of view of the faculty members of leading universities and the main influencing factors. The aim is to identify successful Soviet practices from the faculty members’ point of view and to assess the possibilities of their use in the current conditions.The study is based on in-depth interviews conducted with faculty members of two leading Russian research universities located in Moscow and Tomsk. The majority of the informants had worked at the universities during the Soviet period. The informants expressed their opinions on the degree of succession of university autonomy and academic freedom in their universities, and on the factors influencing it.The survey revealed that the Soviet experience is perceived very differently both within and between universities. Positive aspects of the Soviet experience include guaranteed state funding and a well-established system of cooperation with industry based on “economic contracts”. These supported the high status of faculty members. Assessments of the modern period are polar. Some believe that this is the period of a reasonable degree of university autonomy and academic freedom, while others believe that it has been greatly reduced and that state control has increased.Tracing the changes in university autonomy and academic freedom reveals the importance of di-versification, especially in funding schemes. The direct transfer of Soviet practices is hardly possible.

Funding acknowledgments are important objects of study in the context of science funding. This study uses a mixed-methods approach to analyze the funding acknowledgments found in 2.3 million scientific publications published between 2008 and 2021 by authors affiliated with research institutions in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). The aim is to identify the major funders, assess their contribution to national scientific publications, and gain insights into the funding mechanism in relation to collaboration and publication. Publication data from the Web of Science is examined to provide key insights about funding activities. Saudi Arabia and Qatar lead the region, as about half of their publications include acknowledgments to funding sources. Most MENA countries exhibit strong linkages with foreign agencies, mainly due to a high level of international collaboration. The distinction between domestic and international publications reveals some differences in terms of funding structures. For instance, Turkey and Iran are dominated by one or two major funders whereas a few other countries like Saudi Arabia showcase multiple funders. Iran and Kuwait are examples of countries where research is mainly funded by domestic funders. The government and academic sectors mainly fund scientific research in MENA whereas the industry sector plays little or no role in terms of research funding. Lastly, the qualitative analyses provide more context into the complex funding mechanism. The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of the funding structure in MENA countries and provide insights to funders and research managers to evaluate the funding landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three senior figures at the US National Institutes of Health explain why the agency remains committed to supporting basic science and research.

For some 20 years, science funding bodies have been asking for the integration of sex- and gender-related factors into the content of research and innovation. The rationale for those requirements has been the accumulated evidence that sex and gender are important determinants of health and disease. The European Commission (EC) has been the first, since 2002, to seriously ask for the integration of sex and gender into research and innovation in the context of their multi-annual framework programmes. When introduced, this condition was not immediately applauded by the research community, who perhaps lacked training in methods for the integration of sex- and gender-related factors. The EC Expert Group on Gendered Innovations sought to fill this gap. This review describes the work of this international collaborative project which has resulted in the development of general and field-specific methods for sex and gender analysis and 38 case studies for various research domains (science, health and medicine, environment, engineering) to illustrate how, by applying methods of sex and gender analysis, new knowledge could be created. Since 2010, science funding bodies in Canada, the USA and several EU member states have followed the example of the EC issuing similar conditions. Although the effects of nutritional patterns on a range of (physiological and health) outcomes may differ for men and women, sex and gender analyses are rarely conducted in nutrition research. In this review, we provide examples of how gender is connected to dietary intake, and how advancing gender analysis may inform gender-sensitive policies and dietary recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many have become increasingly dissatisfied with how science funding is distributed. Traditional grant funding processes are seen as stifling the creativity of researchers, in addition to being bureaucratic, slow, and inefficient. Consequently, there have been increasing popular calls to make "fast funding" – fast, unbureaucratic grant applications – a new standard for scientific funding. Though this approach to funding, implemented by Fast Grants, has been successful as a pandemic response strategy, we believe there are serious costs to its wide-scale adoption, particularly for transparency and equity, and that the purported benefits – increased creativity and efficiency – are unlikely to materialize. While traditional funding mechanisms are certainly not perfect, scientific communities should think twice before adopting fast funding as a new standard for funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research funders and managers can play a critical role in supporting the translation of knowledge into action by facilitating the brokering of knowledge and partnerships. We use semi-structured interviews with a research funding agency, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), to explore (i) ways that funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, the (ii) barriers to, and (iii) enablers for, facilitating knowledge brokering, and (iv) the individual skills and attributes for research program funders and managers to be effective brokers. Based on these findings, we generate three considerations for research funders elsewhere, in particular R4D funders, seeking to build capacity for knowledge brokering: (i) formalise the process and practice, (ii) develop shared language and understanding, and (iii) build individual competencies and capabilities. Our findings complement the existing literature with a context specific analysis of how research funders can facilitate knowledge brokering, and by identifying the barriers and enablers in doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the Value-Free Ideal (VFI) had many precursors, it became a solidified bulwark of normative claims about scientific reasoning and practice in the mid-twentieth century. Since then, it has played a central role in the philosophy of science, first as a basic presupposition of how science should work, then as a target for critique, and now as a target for replacement. In this paper, we will argue that a narrow focus on the VFI is misguided, because the VFI coalesced in the midst of other important shifts in the relationship between science and society. In particular, the mid-twentieth century saw the acceptance of the “social contract for science,” a tacit agreement between scientists and government officials, and more broadly between science and society. It was built around three core concepts: a distinction between basic and applied science, a conception of scientific freedom that limited social responsibility for scientists, and a justification for public funding of basic science in the form of the linear model. Within the conceptual framework of the social contract for science, it is clearer both (1) why the VFI was adopted, (2) why it is difficult to replace the VFI within the old social contract, and (3) how we need to revise the social contract for science in order to replace the VFI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a recent increase in attention toward the proper targets of evaluation in science funding policy. Specifically, some claim that we should 'fund people, not projects' to allow for increased autonomy for researchers. Critics argue that this movement unduly opens room for biases against several marginalized groups of scientists. In this paper, I contribute to this discussion by accomplishing a few related tasks. First, I analyze the idea of 'funding people, not projects' and show that it actually suggests multiple positions. Second, I propose a mechanism for evaluating researchers through narrative CVs. Finally, I respond to critics by showing that we should shift the goalposts from debiasing peer review to arrangements of science funding policies that are debiasing as a whole. In doing so, I hope to clarify and assess the movement, while pointing to ways forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some research funding organizations (funders) are experimenting with random allocation of funding (funding lotteries), whereby funding is awarded to a random subset of eligible applicants evaluated positively by review panels. There is no consensus on which allocation rule is fairer—traditional peer review or funding lotteries—partly because there exist different ways of implementing funding lotteries, and partly because different selection procedures satisfy different ideas of fairness (desiderata). Here we focus on two desiderata: that funding be allocated by 'merit' (epistemic correctness) versus following ethical considerations, for example without perpetuating biases (unbiased fairness) and without concentrating resources in the hands of a few (distributive fairness). We contribute to the debate first by differentiating among different existing lottery types in an extended taxonomy of selection procedures; and second, by evaluating (via Monte Carlo simulations) how these different selection procedures meet the different desiderata under different conditions. The extended taxonomy distinguishes "Types" of selection procedures by the role of randomness in guiding funding decisions, from null (traditional peer review), to minimal and extensive (various types of funding lotteries). Simulations show that low-randomness Types (e.g. 'tie-breaking' lotteries) do not differ meaningfully from traditional peer review in the way they prioritize epistemic correctness at the cost of lower unbiased and distributive fairness. Probably unbeknownst to funders, another common lottery Type (lotteries where some favorably-evaluated proposals bypass the lottery) displays marked variation in epistemic correctness and fairness depending on the specific bypass implementation. We discuss implications for funders who run funding lotteries or are considering doing so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: To address complex problems, scholars are increasingly faced with challenges of integrating diverse domains. We analyzed the evolution of this convergence paradigm in the ecosystem of brain science, a research frontier that provides a contemporary testbed for evaluating two modes of cross-domain integration: (a) cross-disciplinary collaboration among experts from academic departments associated with disparate disciplines; and (b) cross-topic knowledge recombination across distinct subject areas. We show that research involving both modes features a 16% citation premium relative to a mono-domain baseline. We further show that the cross-disciplinary mode is essential for integrating across large epistemic distances. Yet we find research utilizing cross-topic exploration alone—a convergence shortcut—to be growing in prevalence at roughly 3% per year, significantly outpacing the more essential cross-disciplinary convergence mode. By measuring shifts in the prevalence and impact of different convergence modes in the 5-year intervals up to and after 2013, we find that shortcut patterns may relate to competitive pressures associated with Human Brain funding initiatives launched that year. Without policy adjustments, flagship funding programs may unintentionally incentivize suboptimal integration patterns, thereby undercutting convergence science’s potential in tackling grand challenges.

The article presents a generalising analysis of targeted regional programs of the Odesa region in the context of identifying direct participants in their implementation, analyses the data on the possible integration of the results of research work carried out by scientific institutions and higher education institutions (HEIs) within the regional target and comprehensive programmes of the region. The study was based on such information resources as regulatory legal acts of Ukraine, analytical materials of the State Statistics Service of Ukraine, Strategic and Programme Documents of the Odesa Regional Council, analytical data on the scientific activities of scientific institutions and higher education institutions of Odesa Oblast. According to the author, the post-war rehabilitation of the country is impossible without scientific, technical and innovative development, which is manifested in the practical application of scientific developments. Therefore, it is important to study the prospects of participation of scientific institutions and higher education institutions in the regional development programmes of the Odesa oblast in the context of economic recovery. It was found that the amount and share of funding for the activities of the programmes implemented with the participation of scientific institutions and higher education institutions of Odesa oblast are insignificant in the total funding of individual programmes. The article shows that the engagement of scientific institutions of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NAS of Ukraine) and higher education institutions of Odesa oblast in the realisation of the regional targeted and complex programs will allow optimising the costs of research works and avoiding double funding since most of the operations are carried out at the expense of state funding. Participation of scientific institutions in the process of development, elaboration and implementation of regional target programs will contribute to their credibility, will allow for detailed planning. This, in turn, will ensure effective implementation with the achievement of the set tasks and goals, thus influencing the development of the market, (including innovation infrastructure), integration of science, education, small and medium business and public authorities

Scientists and funding bodies are interdependent actors involved in an ongoing two-way signalling interaction; however, we lack insight on the social mechanisms underpinning this interaction. To address this issue, we examine how successfully funded scientists interpret and address criteria set by the funding body to maximise their chances of funding success. We also consider the possible adverse side effects that can arise from scientists' competitive efforts to address these criteria. Our findings identify a portfolio of funding criteria—research feasibility, research alignment and team credentials—that scientists address when preparing grant applications. Effectively addressing these criteria enhances the prospects of funding success and value creation. However, we also find that scientists can over-address funding criteria, which is counterproductive and yields undesirable side effects. Our research therefore makes an important distinction between the possibilities for value creation and the value creation frictions that can unintentionally arise based on how grant-submitting scientists interpret and address the criteria signalled by the funding body. Our research has implications for policymakers, funding bodies and scientists which we also discuss. Plain English Summary: Hyper-competition for public grant funding can compromise the value created from successfully funded research. When a scientist successfully acquires a publicly funded grant, it sends a signal of research quality and value. However, competition for funding is getting increasingly difficult. Scientists must balance their desire to do the research they want to do against the insistence of funding bodies to have the criteria they set addressed appropriately. Our research shows that, while this two-way interaction between scientists and funding bodies increases the quality and value of funded research, it also stifles research novelty and human capital development. This occurs because scientists over-conform to the perceived funding criteria. The main implication of this research is that policymakers and funding bodies must carefully monitor how they set, communicate and implement funding criteria and evaluation processes. They must ensure there is enough funding dedicated to early-stage and higher risk research, and also account for equality and diversity to support scientists at all career stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A classic thesis is that scientific achievement exhibits a "Matthew effect": Scientists who have previously been successful are more likely to succeed again, producing increasing distinction. We investigate to what extent the Matthew effect drives the allocation of research funds. To this end, we assembled a dataset containing all review scores and funding decisions of grant proposals submitted by recent PhDs in a €2 billion granting program. Analyses of review scores reveal that early funding success introduces a growing rift, with winners just above the funding threshold accumulating more than twice as much research funding (€180,000) during the following eight years as nonwinners just below it. We find no evidence that winners' improved funding chances in subsequent competitions are due to achievements enabled by the preceding grant, which suggests that early funding itself is an asset for acquiring later funding. Surprisingly, however, the emergent funding gap is partly created by applicants, who, after failing to win one grant, apply for another grant less often.

Funding of curiosity-driven science is the lifeblood of scientific and technological innovation. Various models of funding allocation became institutionalized in the 20th century, shaping the present landscape of research funding. There are numerous reasons for scientists to be dissatisfied with current funding schemes, including the imbalance between funding for curiosity-driven and mission-directed research, regional and country disparities, path-dependency of who gets funded, gender and race disparities, low inter-reviewer reliability, and the trade-off between the effort and time spent on writing or reviewing proposals and doing research. We discuss possible alternative models for dealing with these issues. These alternatives include incremental changes such as placing more weight on the proposals or on the investigators and representative composition of panel members, along with deeper reforms such as distributed or concentrated funding and partial lotteries in response to low inter-reviewer reliability. We also consider radical alternatives to current funding schemes: the removal of political governance and the introduction of international competitive applications to a World Research Council alongside national funding sources. There is likely no single best way to fund curiosity-driven research; we examine arguments for and against the possibility of systematically evaluating alternative models empirically., Competing Interests: Competing interests statement:G.G. is vice-president of the European Research Council as of 2024.

The notion of grand challenges has become popular in research governance to support the allocation of research funding to societally beneficial topics. This article illustrates the flexibility and usefulness of grand challenges for university rectorates and project leaders when communicating with policy makers, research funders, and local industries and companies. The flexibility is beneficial to researchers and rectorate during the design stage of research projects. However, their utility diminishes in the later stages as other targets take precedence, particularly the need to demonstrate academic excellence. First, I explore the definitions of grand challenges in United States and European Union. Second, I provide a case study demonstrating the use of grand challenges in one technical research university. Last, I propose that if the aim in research policy is to orient research more towards societal benefit, more specific processual or outcome-oriented targets should be introduced to supplement grand challenges.

This is a commentary on William Lynch's Minority Report, which is a synthesis of the last 75 years of STS writings with philosophical themes from Lakatos, Feyerabend, and others. The comment questions the continued relevance of older ideas of scientific opinion which rested on the supposed autonomy of scientists in the face of the present grant system and the bureaucracy of peer review. The magnitude of the funding of science, and its apparent biases, call the whole of the inherited view of science into question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do corporations and wealthy philanthropists fund the human sciences? Examining the history of the Santa Fe Institute (SFI), a private research institute founded in the early 1980s, this article shows that funders can find as much value in the social worlds of the sciences they sponsor as in their ideas. SFI became increasingly dependent on funding from corporations and libertarian business leaders in the 1990s and 2000s. At the same time, its intellectual work came to focus on the underlying principles of adaptation, innovation, and decentralized coordination supposedly at work in 'complex systems' from biological ecosystems to markets and firms. This research cast the ideas of the libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek into a new scientific idiom. SFI also became a space where figures in business, media, academia, and politics could come to learn to see the world in a particular way—to acquire the subjectivity of what I call 'the Santa Fe Institute libertarian'. At SFI, visitors did not simply learn the principles of neo-Hayekian complex system science. They came to see themselves as agents of social evolution, providing the spark that the free-market system needed to produce new technologies and new solutions to social problems without top-down political direction. For the Institute's corporate and libertarian financiers, SFI was not just a space where intellectuals described the world in favored ideological terms, but a space where elite actors became committed to the project of making a new political-economic order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeszyty Naukowe UPH Seria Administracja i Zarządzanie is the property of Siedlce University of Natural Sciences & Humanities and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This capstone report involves the relationship between marine conservation biologists and funding. The goal is to help scientists pitch their projects in a way that compels potential philanthropists dedicated to ocean conservation to financially contribute by investigating transferable communication tools that scientists can utilize. This has been done through conducting interviews with various marine foundations and institutions’ program departments. Upon conducting extensive research in marine fundraising, it becomes clear that there has been a shift in the philanthropic landscape that requires scientists and labs to think differently about cultivating relationships with donors. Ocean science research has been reliant upon now dwindling large scale financial support from federal agencies. This research highlights the importance of cultivating relationships with philanthropists and marine conservation foundations through new and different communication approaches.

High Risk-High Reward (HRHR) research refers to scientific research with high risk of failure but characterized by breakthrough, innovation and originality. It truly reflects the original innovation ability of science and technology, is committed to bringing major scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs, and is conducive to accelerating the improvement of national competitiveness in original science and technology. The theoretical and methodological research in this area will help improve science and technology policies. On the basis of clarifying its development background, conceptual connotation and characteristics, this paper discusses the construction of a "decision-fundingimplementation" model of HRHR research and management system. By taking the HRHR projects of typical international scientific research institutions as case studies, it systematically analyzes, compares and summarizes the basic principles, review processes, advantages and disadvantages of representative academic review mechanisms such as peer-review model, project-manager model, and de-review model. Based on the innovation experience of foreign HRHR research projects, some suggestions are put forward: formulate HRHR research funding policies to promote original innovation; improve the academic review mechanism for selecting HRHR research; and create an excellent academic ecology that stimulates HRHR research development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Decades of scholarship and practice highlight the need for scientific research that informs individuals on the front lines of decision-making. Funding organizations can play an important role in supporting useful and usable research by discussing the criteria and processes they use to guide the development and review of funded projects. However, practical examples of how funders can engage with grantees on the design of research efforts are not widely available. In this article, we respond to calls for more information in this area by presenting one example of evaluation criteria and guidance questions used by a philanthropic grant-making program that is focused on user-driven research. We describe this process through the lens of a funded research project that was designed to inform improvements in coastal habitat restoration. We hope that a closer look at an example of how to evaluate project ideas for their potential to provide critical information to decision-makers can be useful for other funders and researchers trying to produce useful and usable science.

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

A large part of governmental research funding is currently distributed through the peer review of project proposals. In this paper, we argue that such funding systems incentivize and even force researchers to violate five moral values, each of which is central to commonly used scientific codes of conduct. Our argument complements existing epistemic arguments against peer-review project funding systems and, accordingly, strengthens the mounting calls for reform of these systems.

Since taking office in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has transformed science in Canada, particularly for government scientists. The author describes and assesses these changes, from revised communication policies for government scientists, to the closure of scientific facilities and offices, to the altered landscape for science funding. In these changes, one can see an importation of a corporate model into governance, with government practices streamlined to ensure near-exclusive focus on the particular agenda of the government. But democracies should not be run like corporations; they require greater openness and acceptance of divergent interests within government science. In particular, government research is often crucial to the assessment of government actions and policies, and citizens require access to this information to be able to assess their government at times of election. The author articulates four implementable principles that can help maintain science’s important place in democratic governance. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Blinding reviewers to applicant identity has been proposed to reduce bias in peer review. Methods: This experimental test used 1200 NIH grant applications, 400 from Black investigators, 400 matched applications from White investigators, and 400 randomly selected applications from White investigators. Applications were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats. Results: Redaction reduced, but did not eliminate, reviewers’ ability to correctly guess features of identity. The primary, preregistered analysis hypothesized a differential effect of redaction according to investigator race in the matched applications. A set of secondary analyses (not preregistered) used the randomly selected applications from White scientists and tested the same interaction. Both analyses revealed similar effects: Standard format applications from White investigators scored better than those from Black investigators. Redaction cut the size of the difference by about half (e.g. from a Cohen’s d of 0.20–0.10 in matched applications); redaction caused applications from White scientists to score worse but had no effect on scores for Black applications. Conclusions: Grant-writing considerations and halo effects are discussed as competing explanations for this pattern. The findings support further evaluation of peer review models that diminish the influence of applicant identity. Funding: Funding was provided by the NIH.

Successful incorporation of scientific knowledge into environmental policy and decisions is a significant challenge. Although studies on how to bridge the knowledge-action gap have proliferated over the last decade, few have investigated the roles, responsibilities, and opportunities for funding bodies to meet this challenge. In this study we present a set of criteria gleaned from interviews with experts across Canada that can be used by funding bodies to evaluate the potential for proposed research to produce actionable knowledge for environmental policy and practice. We also provide recommendations for how funding bodies can design funding calls and foster the skills required to bridge the knowledge-action gap. We interviewed 84 individuals with extensive experience as knowledge users at the science-policy interface who work for environmentally-focused federal and provincial/territorial government bodies and non-governmental organizations. Respondents were asked to describe elements of research proposals that indicate that the resulting research is likely to be useful in a policy context, and what advice they would give to funding bodies to increase the potential impact of sponsored research. Twenty-five individuals also completed a closed-ended survey that followed up on these questions. Research proposals that demonstrated (1) a team with diverse expertise and experience in co-production, (2) a flexible research plan that aligns timelines and spatial scale with policy needs, (3) a clear and demonstrable link to a policy issue, and (4) a detailed and diverse knowledge exchange plan for reaching relevant stakeholders were seen as more promising for producing actionable knowledge. Suggested changes to funding models to enhance utility of funded research included (1) using diverse expertise to adjudicate awards, (2) supporting co-production and interdisciplinary research through longer grant durations and integrated reward structures, and (3) following-up on and rewarding knowledge exchange by conducting impact evaluation. The set of recommendations presented here can guide both funding agencies and research teams who wish to change how applied environmental science is conducted and improve its connection to policy and practice.

This article provides the first overview of the dialogues between Brazilian and Portuguese geography throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. We expand current debates about marginal geographies in the growing field of global histories of geography by arguing that the Luso-Brazilian case reveals how international epistemic communities can be formed between semiperipheral geographic communities. We call attention to the role that science funding plays in the making of epistemic communities in semiperipheral spaces where political instability prevails, by allowing the creation of platforms of dialogue between geographic academies, such as international conferences, scientific journals, and research projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Despite ambition for actionable knowledge, defining and measuring knowledge use remains elusive to those co-producing it. • Researchers co-producing knowledge found it difficult to clearly describe users and uses, among other key attributes. • Narrow typologies of sustainability knowledge do not account for all outcomes and may instead act as a limitation. • The inherent messiness of knowledge production and use contribute to methodological obstacles to studying and explaining it. • The study highlights opportunities for funders seeking to fund collaborative research or to advance sustainability goals. Scientific research is increasingly motivated to produce knowledge for sustainability decision-making and action. This is driving some funders, academic institutions, and researchers to pursue research approaches that are more interactive with potential users of the knowledge created. Yet despite compelling evidence that these more collaborative approaches lead to increased use, it remains unclear what constitutes use and how to evaluate its societal impact. To understand knowledge utilization better, we use data from in-depth interviews of research project team leaders funded through an applied coastal research program in the United States. We show that, empirically, what constitutes 'use' remains elusive: researchers believe that their efforts yield usable knowledge that is impactful but find it difficult to provide clear descriptions about specific uses, user identities, attribution, and evidence of broader outcomes. We argue that rather than an impediment to understanding knowledge utilization, these findings may suggest the inherent messiness of knowledge production and use. These results build on prior findings about the methodological obstacles to studying or explaining knowledge utilization and offer new insight into factors that shape the linking of sustainability knowledge and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The need to protect public health during the current COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated conference cancellations on an unprecedented scale. As the scientific community adapts to new working conditions, it is important to recognize that some of our actions may disproportionately affect early-career researchers and scientists from countries with limited research funding. We encourage all conference organizers, funders and institutions who are able to do so to consider how they can mitigate the unintended consequences of conference and travel cancellations and we provide seven recommendations for how this could be achieved. The proposed solutions may also offer long-term benefits for those who normally cannot attend conferences, and thus lead to a more equitable future for generations of researchers.

I have had multiple aims in writing this series of articles. My primary aim has been to show how simple and innovative experiments can be performed at almost no cost, by nearly anyone, to create significant new knowledge. The history of science shows that this is true in most areas of scientific research, albeit to varying degrees. I have focussed on the field of animal behaviour both because I am more familiar with this field than others, but also because, the field of animal behaviour is especially well-suited for such low-cost research. It has also been my aim, of course, to discuss the principles of ethology (the scientific study of animal behaviour), through the medium of these experiments. My motivation in writing this series is to bring social prestige to low-cost research, make the practice of science more inclusive and democratic, and empower large numbers of people to become knowledge producers rather than merely remain knowledge consumers. The people I especially have in mind are, less-endowed sections of society, including, but not restricted to, underdeveloped countries, marginalised institutions and individuals, students, the general public, amateurs, and all those with little or no access to large research grants and sophisticated laboratory facilities, for whatever reason [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic scientists and research institutes are increasingly being evaluated using digital metrics, from bibliometrics to patent counts. These metrics are often framed, by science policy analysts, economists of science as well as funding agencies, as objective and universal proxies for scientific worth, potential, and productivity. In biomedical science, where there is stiff competition for grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), metrics are sold as a less arbitrary way to allocate funds, yet the funding context in which metrics are applied is not critically examined. Success by the metrics is in fact inextricably linked to the distribution of NIH funds, and from the 1980s to the 2000s, NIH funding has been marked by high inequality (elite investigators and institutes get the lion's share of resources) and decreased mobility (those who start at the bottom are less likely to rise to the upper ranks). Elite investigators and institutes currently produce the bulk of prestigious publications, citations, and patents that commonly used metrics valorise. Metrics-based evaluation therefore reproduces, and potentially amplifies, existing inequalities in academic science and rich-get-richer effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Institutions of higher learning are critical in promoting a knowledge-driven economy through research and training. Nepali universities receive funding from the University Grants Commission, Nepal (UGC-N) to support for impactful research. UGC-N requires grantees to publish research results as journal articles. We reviewed papers published through UGC-N funded research projects over a 10-year period (2008–2018) to assess the trends of article publication in terms of frequency and quality (based on journal impact factor and SCImago journal ranking). At most, 17% projects (n = 325) had publications and the majority of articles were published in journals that had neither SJR rank (74%, n = 240) nor impact factor (86%, n = 279). Most importantly, 10% of articles (n = 23) published in the non-ranked journals appeared in predatory journals. Although there were increasing trends of grants and research article publications in the last 10 years, journal-level quality metrics showed no improvements and suggested decreasing trends during the last half decade. The publication output varied among grant categories. Master research grants and PhD research grants performed better than those of faculty research grants in terms of publication in quality journals. We call for an increased commitment from political and academic leadership to promote quality research in Nepal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The way research is, and should be, funded by the public sphere is the subject of renewed interest for sociology, economics, management sciences, and more recently, for the philosophy of science. In this contribution, I propose a qualitative, epistemological criticism of the funding by lottery model, which is advocated by a growing number of scholars as an alternative to peer review. This lottery scheme draws on the lack of efficiency and of robustness of the peer-review-based evaluation to argue that the majority of public resources for basic science should be allocated randomly. I first differentiate between two distinct arguments used to defend this alternative funding scheme based on considerations about the logic of scientific research. To assess their epistemological limits, I then present and develop a conceptual frame, grounded on the notion of 'system of practice', which can be used to understand what precisely it means, for a research project, to be interesting or significant. I use this epistemological analysis to show that the lottery model is not theoretically optimal, since it underestimates the integration of all scientific projects in densely interconnected systems of conceptual, experimental, or technical practices which confer their proper interest to them. I also apply these arguments in order to criticize the classical peer-review process. I finally suggest, as a discussion, that some recently proposed models that bring to the fore a principle of decentralization of the evaluation and selection process may constitute a better alternative, if the practical conditions of their implementation are adequately settled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social scientists have expressed strong views on corporate influences over science, but most attention has been devoted to broad, Black/White arguments, rather than to actual mechanisms of influence. This paper summarizes an experience where involvement in a lawsuit led to the discovery of an unexpected mechanism: A large corporation facing a multibillion-dollar court judgment quietly provided generous funding to well-known scientists (including at least one Nobel prize winner) who would submit articles to "open," peer-reviewed journals, so that their "unbiased science" could be cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court. On balance, the corporation's most effective techniques of influence may have been provided not by overt pressure, but by encouraging scientists to continue thinking of themselves as independent and impartial.

The fact that it is difficult to evaluate and compare the outputs of individual researchers might actually be good for science.

Several recent papers have reinvigorated a chronic concern about the need for ecological science to focus more on long-term research. For a few decades, significant voices among ecologists have been assembling elements of a case in favor of long-term ecological research. In this article and for the first time, we synthesize the elements of this case and present it in succinct form. We also argue that this case is unlikely to result in more long-term research. Finally, we present ideas that, if implemented, are more likely to result in appropriate levels of investment in long-term research in ecological science. The article comes at an important time, because the US National Science Foundation is currently undertaking a 40-year review of its Long-Term Ecological Research Network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Muiraquitã: Revista de Letras e Humanidades is the property of Muiraquita and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

At some point during the 1950s, mainstream American philosophy of science began increasingly to avoid questions about the role of non-cognitive values in science and, accordingly, increasingly to avoid active engagement with social, political and moral concerns. Such questions and engagement eventually ceased to be part of the mainstream. Here we show that the eventual dominance of 'value-free' philosophy of science can be attributed, at least in part, to the policies of the U.S. National Science Foundation's "History and Philosophy of Science" sub-program. In turn, the sub-program's policies were set by logical empiricists who espoused value-free philosophy of science; these philosophers' actions, we also point out, fit a broad pattern, one in which analytic philosophers used institutional control to marginalize rival approaches to philosophy. We go on to draw on existing knowledge of this pattern to suggest two further, similar, contributors to the withdrawal from value-laden philosophy of science, namely decisions by the editors of Philosophy of Science and by the editors of The Journal of Philosophy. Political climate was, we argue, at most an indirect contributor to the withdrawal and was neither a factor that decided whether it occurred nor one that was sufficient to bring it about. Moreover, we argue that the actions at the National Science Foundation went beyond what was required by its senior administrators and are better viewed as part of what drove, rather than as what was being driven by, the adoption of logical empiricism by the philosophy of science community. • The decline of value-laden philosophy of science during the 1950s-1960s was in part due to the funding policies of the NSF. • These funding policies were drafted and implemented by philosophers of science who espoused value-free approaches. • The policies were not the result of the political climate or professionalization. • Analytic editors' takeovers of Philosophy of Science and The Journal of Philosophy added to the documented marginalization. • The marginalization fits a broader pattern of marginalization of non-analytic approaches to philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]