caerCentral Asian Economic ReviewCentral Asian Economic Review2789-43982789-4401Университет Нархоз10.52821/2789-4401-2024-5-48-58caer-1294Research ArticleНАЦИОНАЛЬНАЯ ЭКОНОМИКА: ВЕКТОРЫ РАЗВИТИЯNATIONAL ECONOMY: DEVELOPMENT VECTORSКРИТИЧЕСКАЯ ОЦЕНКА МЕХАНИЗМА РАСПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ ГРАНТОВОГО ФИНАНСИРОВАНИЯ В СОЦИАЛЬНО-ГУМАНИТАРНЫХ НАУКАХCRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATION MECHANISM IN SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN SCIENCEShttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6558-6004МолдашевК. Б.MoldashevK. B.

Молдашев Кайрат Булатович – PhD, ассоциированный профессор

Каскелен

Kaskelen

kairat.moldashev@sdu.edu.kzSDU UniversityКазахстанSDU UniversityKazakhstan202429012025054858Copyright © Молдашев К.Б., 20252025Молдашев К.Б.Moldashev K.B.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://caer.narxoz.kz/jour/article/view/1294

Цель исследования - критическая оценка механизма распределения грантового финансирования в социально-гуманитарных науках через анализ взаимосвязи между баллами экспертов при Государственной научно-технической экспертизе (ГНТЭ) и баллами национальных научных советов (ННС).

Методология исследования – в качестве данных для исследования использованы нормативно-правовые акты, регулирующие процесс грантового финансирования в Казахстане, а также открытые данные на сайте www.ncste.kz с баллами государственной научно-технической экспертизы (ГНТЭ) и национальных научных советов (ННС). Корреляционный анализ и визуализация данных проведены с применением MS Excel и Phyton.

Оригинальность / ценность исследования – статья вносит вклад в научную литературу по оценке механизмов финансирования науки на основе кейса распределения научных грантов в Казахстане. Исследование имеет практическую ценность для принятий решений и реформирования механизмов финансирования.

Результаты исследования – анализ показывает, что несмотря на схожесть в оценочных листах при ГНТЭ и оценке со стороны ННС, корреляция между баллами является очень слабой при общем конкурсе и средней (близкой к слабой) при конкурсе для молодых ученых. Данный результат может свидетельствовать о наличии более высокого уровня конфликта интересов при общем конкурсе по сравнению с конкурсом для молодых ученых с учетом факта, что для вхождения в состав ННС необходим стаж научно-исследовательской работы не менее десяти лет.

The purpose of the research is to critically evaluate the grant funding allocation mechanism in the social sciences and humanities field by analyzing the relationship between the scores of experts during the State Scientific and Technical Expertise (SSTE) and the scores of the National Scientific Councils (NSC).

Methodology – the data used for the research includes legal and regulatory acts governing the grant funding process in Kazakhstan, as well as publicly available data on the website www.ncste.kz with scores from the State Scientific and Technical Expertise (SSTE) and the National Scientific Councils (NSC). Correlation analysis and data visualization were conducted using MS Excel and Python.

Originality / Value of the research – the article contributes to the scientific literature by evaluating funding mechanisms through the case of scientific grant distribution in Kazakhstan. The study has practical value for decision-making and reforming funding mechanisms.

Findings – the analysis shows that despite similarities in the evaluation forms of the SSTE and the NSC, the correlation between the scores is very weak in the general competition and moderate (closer to weak) in the competition for young scientists. This result may indicate a higher level of conflict of interest in the general competition compared to the competition for young scientists, considering the fact that a minimum of ten years of research experience is required to join the NSC.

грантовое финансированиенациональные научные советынаучно-техническая экспертизасоциально-гуманитарные наукиgrant fundingNational Scientific Councilsscientific and technical expertisesocial and humanitarian sciencesСтатья опубликована в рамках проекта, который реализуется за счет грантового финансирования на 2023-2025 гг. Комитета науки Министерства науки и высшего образования Республики Казахстан по теме ИРН: AP19676568 “Создание благоприятной исследовательской среды в вузах и научно-исследовательских институтах Казахстана”.The article was published as part of a project funded by a grant from the Science Committee of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2023-2025 on the topic IRN: AP19676568 " Creating research favorable environments in the universities and research institutions in Kazakhstan".ReferencesAbdoul H. et al. Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices // PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science. – 2012. – Vol. 7. – № 9. – article e46054p. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046054.Abdoul, H., Perrey, C., Amiel, P., Tubach, F., Gottot, S., Durand-Zaleski, I., & Alberti, C. (2012). Peer Review of Grant Applications: Criteria Used and Qualitative Study of Reviewer Practices. PLOS ONE, 7(9), e46054. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046054Pier E.L. et al. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. – 2018. – Vol. 115. – № 12. – P. 2952–2957. – DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1714379115.Pier, E. L., Brauer, M., Filut, A., Kaatz, A., Raclaw, J., Nathan, M. J., Ford, C. E., & Carnes, M. (2018). Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(12), 2952-2957. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714379115Mutz R., Bornmann L., Daniel H.-D. Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach // PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science. – 2012. – Vol. 7. – № 10. – article e48509p. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048509.Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). Heterogeneity of Inter-Rater Reliabilities of Grant Peer Reviews and Its Determinants: A General Estimating Equations Approach. PLOS ONE, 7(10), e48509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048509Graves N., Barnett A.G., Clarke P. Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel // BMJ. British Medical Journal Publishing Group. – 2011. – Vol. 343. – article d4797p. – DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d4797.Graves, N., Barnett, A. G., & Clarke, P. (2011). Funding grant proposals for scientific research: Retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ, 343, d4797. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.d4797Jerrim J., Vries R. Are peer reviews of grant proposals reliable? An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funding applications // The Social Science Journal. Routledge. – 2023. – Vol. 60. – № 1. – P. 91–109. – DOI: 10.1080/03623319.2020.1728506.Jerrim, J., & Vries, R. (2023). Are peer reviews of grant proposals reliable? An analysis of Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) funding applications. The Social Science Journal, 60(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1728506Gurwitz D., Milanesi E., Koenig T. Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency // PLoS Biol.– 2014. – Vol. 12. – № 12. – article e1002010p. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010.Gurwitz, D., Milanesi, E., & Koenig, T. (2014). Grant Application Review: The Case of Transparency. PLoS Biology, 12(12), e1002010. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002010Abdoul H. Et al. Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France // PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science. – 2012. – Vol. 7. – № 4. – article e35247p. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035247.Abdoul, H., Perrey, C., Tubach, F., Amiel, P., Durand-Zaleski, I., & Alberti, C. (2012). Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France. PLOS ONE, 7(4), e35247. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035247Callaham M.L., Tercier J. The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality // PLOS Medicine. Public Library of Science. – 2007. – Vol. 4. – № 1. – article e40p. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040.Callaham, M. L., & Tercier, J. (2007). The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality. PLOS Medicine, 4(1), e40. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040040Feliciani T. et al. Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model // Research Policy. – 2022. – Vol. 51. – № 4. – article 104467p. – DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2021.104467.Feliciani, T., Morreau, M., Luo, J., Lucas, P., & Shankar, K. (2022). Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model. Research Policy, 51(4), 104467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104467Tamblyn R. et al. Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada // CMAJ. CMAJ.– 2018. – Vol. 190. – № 16. – P. E489–E499. – DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.170901.Tamblyn, R., Girard, N., Qian, C. J., & Hanley, J. (2018). Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. CMAJ, 190(16), E489–E499. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.170901Li D. Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH // American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. – 2017. – Vol. 9. – № 2. – P. 60–92. – DOI: 10.1257/app.20150421.Li, D. (2017). Expertise versus Bias in Evaluation: Evidence from the NIH. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(2), 60–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20150421Banal-Estañol A. et al. Similar-to-me effects in the grant application process: Applicants, panellists, and the likelihood of obtaining funds // R&D Management. 2023. – Vol. 53. – № 5. – P. 819–839. – DOI: 10.1111/radm.12601.Banal-Estañol, A., Liu, Q., Macho-Stadler, I., & Pérez-Castrillo, D. (2023). Similar-to-me effects in the grant application process: Applicants, panellists, and the likelihood of obtaining funds. R&D Management, 53(5), 819–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12601Mom C., Besselaar P. van den. Do interests affect grant application success? The role of organizational proximity [Electronic source] // arXiv.org [website]. – 2022. – URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03255v1 (accessed: 06.09.2024).Mom, C., & Besselaar, P. van den. (2022, May 26). Do interests affect grant application success? The role of organizational proximity. arXiv.Org. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03255v1.Карпов А. Казахстан-2018: страсти по грантам [Электронный ресурс] // ia-centr.ru [web-сайт].– 2020. – URL: https://ia-centr.ru/experts/andrey-karpov/kazkhastan-2018-strasti-po-grantam/ (дата обращения: 06.09.2024).Karpov, А. (2020, October 23). Kazakhstan, 2018: Strasti po grantam. Retrieved September 6, 2023, from https://ia-centr.ru/experts/andrey-karpov/kazkhastan-2018-strasti-po-grantam/ (In Russian).Ratner B. The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/−1, or do they? // J Target Meas Anal Mark. – 2009. – Vol. 17. – № 2. – P. 139–142. – DOI: 10.1057/jt.2009.5.Ratner, B. (2009). The correlation coefficient: Its values range between +1/−1, or do they? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17(2), 139-на142. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.