CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATION MECHANISM IN SOCIAL AND HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES

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.

1. 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.0046054

2. 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.1714379115

3. 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.0048509

4. 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.d4797

5. 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/10.1080/03623319.2020.1728506

6. 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.1002010

7. 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.0035247

8. 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.0040040

9. 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.2021.104467

10. 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.170901

11. 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.20150421

12. 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.12601

13. 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.

14. 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).

15. 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.