Faglige og institusjonelle avgrensninger. Bakgrunnsdata til Norges forskningsråd for evaluering av fagene filosofi, rettsvitenskap sosiologi, sosialantropologi og samfunnsgeografi

I forbindelse med Norges forskningsråds kommende evalueringer av forskningen innen rettsvitenskap, filosofi, sosiologi, sosialantropologi og samfunnsgeografi har NIFU STEP fått i oppdrag å bidra med bakgrunnsinformasjon til Forskningsrådet og til fagpanelene som skal utføre evalueringene. Dette er den første delrapporten fra dette prosjektet og presenterer data som kan gi Norges forskningsråd et bedre grunnlag for de ulike avveiningene som må tas i avgrensningen av de fem evalueringene

Economic Research in Norway: Institutions, resources, personnel and publishing

This report was prepared as a background document for the evaluation of economics research in Norway, planned to start autumn 2006. It presents data on the personnel, economic resources and international publishing related to Norwegian economics research. In most cases, data for 2003 were the most current information available when writing the report

Review of the Human Frontier Science Program's Initiatives 2000-2005

This NIFU STEP report on the Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP) is the third in a series of external reviews of the Program. These are part of an ongoing system for monitoring the relevance and performance of the HFSP scientific programmes. Such reviews are of the utmost importance to ensure that HFSP remains at the cutting edge of life science research and that it continues to provide the means to stimulate innovative international collaborations

Norske deltakeres erfaringer med og utbytte av EUs 6. rammeprogram

Dette notatet er utarbeidet på oppdrag fra Norges forskningsråd og er ment som bakgrunnsmateriale i forberedelsene til norsk deltakelse i EUs 7. rammeprogram for forskning og teknologisk utvikling

Peer review for academic jobs and grants continues to be shaped by metrics, especially if your reviewer is highly ranked

The aim of peer review for research grants and academic hiring boards is to provide expert independent judgement on the quality of research proposals and candidates. Based on findings from a recent survey, Liv Langfeldt, Dag W. Aksnes and Ingvild Reymert, find metrics continue to play a significant role in shaping these decisions, especially for reviewers who are highly ranked themselves

FWF Clusters of Excellence. Evaluation of the selection process for the first call for proposals

In 2021, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) launched its Clusters of Excellence (CoE) programme as the first stage in the excellent=austria initiative. The plan was to fund about four clusters – consisting of three to eight collaborating organisations each – selected based on a 2-stage international peer review process. The clusters’ annual budgets can be €2 to 7 million, of which the FWF funds 60% and the research institutions hosting the clusters the remaining 40%. FWF provides funding for five years, with the possibility of an additional five years. This report presents the results of an accompanying evaluation of the selection procedures for the first call for Clusters of Excellence, and recommendations for developing the procedures for the second call. It is based on analyses of application and review data, surveys to applicants and expert reviewers, interviews with host institutions, members of the international jury assessing the proposals, the FWF board and other stakeholders, as well as observation of jury meetings. A statement by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) on this evaluation can be found at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.836328

Excellence initiatives in Nordic research policies. Policy issues - tensions and options

This report presents results from a research project (PEAC) studying the impact of funding schemes for Centres of Excellence (CoE) in the Nordic countries

Assessing the broader impacts of research: A review of methods and practices

This study was commissioned by the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas). It maps how societal and broader impacts are assessed in four funding agencies outside Sweden (NERC in the UK, NSF in USA, Horizon 2020 and the Research Council of Norway). Experiences with different practices and methods are discussed in order to provide Formas with information for developing their own practises

Evaluation of the European Young Investigator Awards Scheme

This evaluation of the European Young Investigator Awards Scheme (EURYI) was commissioned by the ESF and EUROHORCs and performed by NIFU STEP. Its central questions are to what extent the target group of the scheme has been reached, whether the selection process was able to adequately assess people with different backgrounds and in different stages of their research careers and whether the awardees were selected in accordance with the overall aim of the scheme