The 6 th ASIAHORCs Meeting (Country Report : Korea, Oct. 10, 2012) Dr. Gul-Woo Lee. Director General

Transcription

1 The 6 th ASIAHORCs Meeting (Country Report : Korea, Oct. 10, 2012) Dr. Gul-Woo Lee Director General

2 Ⅰ NRF Overview Ⅱ Evaluation & Management System in Brief Ⅲ Recent Improvements Ⅳ Future Challenges

3 Ⅰ NRF Overview

4 Ⅰ. NRF Overview NRF Headquarters in Daejeon NRF Seoul Office (Center for International Affairs) 1 / 25 3

5 Ⅰ. NRF Overview Inspector General President Board of Directors Office of Inspector General Affiliated Organization KIRD Director General Directorate for Basic Research in Science and Engineering Directorate for Humanities and Social Sciences Directorate for National Science and Engineering Programs Directorate for Academic Promotion Directorate for Strategic Resources Management Center for International Affairs Office of R&D Policy Office of Planning And Cooperation 2 / 25

6 Ⅰ. NRF Overview Human Resources Development, 689 million (25.7%) International Cooperation in Science and Technology, 94 million(3.5%) 2012 Budget: 2,680 Million USD Basic Research, 907 million (33.9%) Research Promotion and Infrastructure, 89 million(3.3%) Academic Research Capacity Enhancement, 206 million(7.7%) Big Sciences, 249 million (9.3%) (7.7%) Nuclear Energy 178 million (6.6%) Fundamental Technology, 268 million (10%) 3 / 25

7 Ⅱ Evaluation & Management System

8 II. Evaluation & Management System Transparency & Fairness Evaluation & Management Objectivity Excellence 4 / 25

9 II. Evaluation & Management System Evaluation for Selection Paper Review (+Oral Presentation) Interim Evaluation Paper Review Final Evaluation Oral Presentation (+Paper Review) Peer Review (From Universities and Research Institutes) Selected OR Failed Continue to support OR Drop-out Eligible to receive additional funding OR Restricted from NRF R&D programs in the future Check for Similar Studies and Patents before selecting the project 5 / 25

10 II. Evaluation & Management System Internal PM or (C)RB Appointed by the NRF Role Managing R&D Programs Recommending Evaluators Evaluating Projects Affiliation Inside NRF Staff Dispatched from universities or research institutes Number 567 persons (2-year term) External Peer Groups from Universities and Research Institutes Evaluating Projects Outside Average 19,000 persons/year, on average 6 / 25

11 II. Evaluation & Management System Organization & Role Full-time/Part-time Persons Role Full-time PM (16 persons) Director 3 Deputy Director 13 Managing R&D programs Part-time PM (551 persons) Chief of Review Board(CRB) Member of Review Board(RB) 39 Evaluating a project Recommending a 512 proper evaluator in Total / 25

12 II. Evaluation & Management System A fellow of a well-known international academic society Director Doctorate with a research career of more than 20 years OR master s degree with a research career of more than 25 years A PI of a large-scale research project Deputy Director OR an editor of a well-known international academic journal Doctorate with a research career of more than 15 years OR master s degree with a research career of more than 20 years 8 / 25

13 II. Evaluation & Management System Capable of speaking at major international symposiums Doctorate with a research career of more than 10 years CRB (Chief of Review Board) RB (Review Board) OR master s degree with a research career of more than 15 years Additionally, must meet one of the following requirements: - Within the top 20% in research performance - Has performed more than 3 projects with NRF funding - President or chief editor of a well known academic society - Award winner of Excellent Researcher of NRF Capable of speaking at major international symposiums Doctorate with a research career of more than 10 years OR master s degree with a research career of more than 15 years 9 / 25

14 II. Evaluation & Management System Build & Maintain a Database for Evaluators NRF has a pool of 71,322 evaluators * KRI (Korean Researcher Information System) ** More prolific in their scholarship 10 / 25

15 II. Evaluation & Management System NRF has simplified the criteria as follows: Evaluation for Selection Appropriate Research Plan Researchers Capability Interim Evaluation Appropriate Research Plan Research Results Final Evaluation Accomplishment of Project Goals Research Results Application Possibility These factors can be modified depending on the program The NRF has implemented 106 programs in 7 categories 11 / 25

16 II. Evaluation & Management System Qualitative Evaluation Factors Give More Weight to These Factors Scientific Outcome Technical Outcome Economic Outcome Social Outcome Impact Factor(IF) CPP (Cites per Royalty Income Manage & Improve Citation Patent) Effect on Input Research Facilities Rank Normalized Patent Value - ROI (Return On CSI (Customer Impact Factor (rnif) Triad Patent Investment) Satisfaction Index) Highly Cited Papers Families - B/C (Benefit-Cost Excellence in Ratio) Outcome - Net Present Value Global Leadership - Internal Rate of Return 12 / 25

17 II. Evaluation & Management System Every Process is based on Relative Evaluation, except for Interim Evaluation Range 5~10% 20% 40~50% 20% 5~10% Grade S A B C D The PI of S-grade Projects The PI of D-grade Projects Privileged to be selected again for another R&D project within 3~5 years Qualifies for more funding in the following year Might be dropped from the project Might get a reduction in funding in the following year Might be restricted from undertaking another R&D project for 3~5 years 13 / 25

18 II. Evaluation & Management System Evaluators Management Evaluate the Evaluators Professionalism Conscientiousness Fairness Sense of morals Conscientious Evaluators Unonscientious Evaluators The names of evaluators and their assessment are released after finishing evaluation process 14 / 25

19 II. Evaluation & Management System 15 / 25

20 II. Evaluation & Management System Online one-stop System Receive Evaluation Management / Report on the research Contract & Remit 16 / 25

21 II. Evaluation & Management System 17 / 25

22 Ⅲ Recent Improvements in Basic Research Programs

23 Ⅲ. Recent Improvement 18 / 25

24 Ⅲ. Recent Improvement Current Improved Program Amount (USD) Maximum Duration Program Amount (USD) Duration General Individual-Type1 53,234 3yrs General Individual-Type2 31,053 5yrs General Individual Standard Adventurous Less Favored 44,362 3yrs General Individual - Adventurous General Individual - Less Favored Fields 44,362 3yrs 53,234 3yrs Young (Research Funding) 44,362 3yrs Young (Research Facility) 88,723 3yrs Young Scientist Young Scientist 44,362 3yrs Excellent Young Scientist 221,808 3yrs Young (Excellent) 221,808 5yrs Women Scientist 39,925 3yrs Local Scientist 39,925 3yrs Women Scientist 44,362 3yrs Local Scientist 44,362 3yrs 19 / 25

25 Ⅲ. Recent Improvement Additional and Linkage Support Additional support (3yrs) and better linkages with higher-level support programs so that excellent projects can increase their performance Linkages with high-level programs so that excellent projects can reinforce inter-program linkages 20 / 25

26 Ⅲ. Recent Improvement For Granting Programs Simplification of final report submission procedure: Online Uploading No final outcome evaluation Strengthened and more focused evaluation when the researcher applies for another R&D program No accounts report Selecting a special inspection of 5% of completed projects Online submission within 3 months of project completion Online uploading within 5 years after project completion Intensive evaluation of outcomes when applying for a new project 21 / 25

27 Ⅲ. Recent Improvement Expansion of Strategic Support Improvement of the Adventurous Research Program Maintain the current system and budget increase for Young Researchers, Women scientists, and Scientists in Local Universities Creation of a support program for Career Scientists Guaranteed support for Less Favored Academic Fields Improvement of the Adventurous Research system Abolishing the fist-year phased evaluation Flexible funding amounts Acceptance of well-intentioned failure 44,362USD~133,156USD 3-year support 22 / 25

28 Ⅲ. Recent Improvement Core Policy Directions Strategic Research: strengthened focus on enrichment - Through middle-up & down methods, will select strategically important fields that are promising or that currently lack competitiveness Will establish and implement a separate selection and evaluation system for re-application of previous grantees Will improve the candidate selection process - Will form a review committee of candidates and collect more diverse opinions by asking relevant academic associations to make nominations MRC will focus on developing human resources in basic medical sciences; new projects in the pharmacy field will be supported by SRC; GCRC will be merged into the National Core Research Center Program to promote convergence fields will set up and operate a separate regional panel in selecting new projects in order to implement the regional quota system (30%) Will relax restrictions on participation of grantees in National R&D programs 23 / 25

29 Ⅳ

30 IV. Future Challenges NRF in the Korean Research Ecosystem Develop Processes to Engage Academic and Scholarly Communities in Setting Research and Infrastructure Priorities and Providing Input into Program Design NRF Operating Model As a Government-affiliated Organization, Grant the NRF More Autonomy and Operational Authority Program Management System Continue to Improve the NRF Peer Review Process by Dedicating More Resources, Granting More Flexibility, and Conducting Systematic Evaluations of the Processes 24 / 25

31 IV. Future Challenges Program Design and Evaluation Strengthen NRF Strategic Planning and Program Design Capabilities, and Take More Time to Implement Major Funding Programs Institute Systematic and Comprehensive Program Evaluation Define High-Level Research Objectives and Explore How International Collaboration May Further Them 25 / 25

32