SciSIP (MOD): A Comparative Assessment of Models for Integrating Societal Impacts Concerns into the Peer Review of Grant Proposals

SciSIP (MOD)：将社会影响问题纳入资助提案同行评审的模型的比较评估

• 批准号: 0830387
• 负责人: Robert Frodeman
• 金额: $ 39.37万
• 依托单位: University of North Texas
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2008
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2008-10-01 至 2012-09-30
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0830387&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: SciSIP; MOD; Comparative; Assessment; Models

Public science and engineering (S&E) funding agencies worldwide rely on the peer review of research proposals to make their funding decisions. Scientific and technical experts are best qualified to judge the scientific and technical merits of proposed research projects. Increasingly, however, society is requiring that S&E funding agencies demonstrate a return on the public investment in S&E research. In response, S&E funding agencies worldwide have incorporated considerations of broader societal impacts into the proposal review process. But asking scientists and engineers to assess the potential societal impacts of proposed research projects takes them beyond the realm of their scientific and technical expertise. The fundamental question of this three year research project is: What is the best way to incorporate societal impacts considerations into the grant proposal peer review process? This research focuses on the ways in which different models of peer review incorporate the broader societal impacts of proposed research. The study assesses five different models of peer review across three US federal agencies: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and two non-US contexts: the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Dutch Technology Foundation (STW). Using both qualitative and quantitative methods (data mining, literature review, surveys, and semi-structured interviews), this research develops usable knowledge by constructing a comparative matrix and analysis of these five models of peer review.The Broader Impacts of this project include: (1) funding 2 graduate research assistants, thereby laying the foundation for continuing work in the Science of Science and Innovation Policy; (2) integrating this research with teaching at the undergraduate level (in UNT's Ethics in Science course); (3) expanding the network of researchers exploring the Science of Science and Innovation Policy; (4) enhancing the understanding of the process of grant proposal peer review by informing all stakeholders in the peer review process (scientists and engineers, funding agency officials, policy makers, and members of the general public) of the project's results; and finally, (5) improving the peer review of grant proposals, especially in terms of the capacity of various models of peer review to assess the societal impact of proposed S&E research. This project benefits society by improving the connection between the funding decisions rendered through proposal peer review and the societal impact of the funded research.

世界各地的公共科学和工程（SE）资助机构依靠同行评审的研究建议，使他们的资助决定。 科学和技术专家最有资格判断拟议研究项目的科学和技术价值。 然而，越来越多的社会要求科学和工程资助机构证明在科学和工程研究的公共投资的回报。 作为回应，世界各地的资助机构已将更广泛的社会影响纳入提案审查过程的考虑因素。 但是，要求科学家和工程师评估拟议研究项目的潜在社会影响，使他们超出了其科学和技术专长的范围。 这个为期三年的研究项目的基本问题是：什么是最好的方式将社会影响的考虑纳入赠款建议同行评审过程？ 这项研究的重点是不同的同行评议模式纳入拟议研究的更广泛的社会影响的方式。该研究评估了美国三个联邦机构（国家科学基金会（NSF），美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）和国家海洋和大气管理局（NOAA））的五种不同的同行评议模型;以及两个非美国背景：加拿大自然科学和工程研究理事会（NSERC）和荷兰技术基金会（STW）。 使用定性和定量方法本研究透过资料探勘、文献回顾、问卷调查、半结构式访谈等方法，建构比较矩阵，分析五种同侪互评模式，以发展有用的知识，其影响包括：（1）资助两名研究生助教，为科学与创新政策学的后续研究奠定基础;（2）将本研究与本科教学相结合（3）扩大探索科学学和创新政策的研究人员网络;（4）向所有参与同行评审的持份者提供信息，以加深他们对资助申请同行评审过程的了解（科学家和工程师、资助机构官员、政策制定者和公众）了解项目成果;（5）改进对资助申请的同行评议，特别是提高各种同行评议模式对科技研究社会影响的评估能力&。 该项目通过改善通过提案同行评审提供的资助决定与资助研究的社会影响之间的联系，使社会受益。