Funding of young scientist and scientific excellence

被引:39
作者
Hornbostel, Stefan [1 ]
Boehmer, Susan [1 ]
Klingsporn, Bernd [1 ]
Neufeld, Joerg [1 ]
von Ins, Markus [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Res Informat & Qual Assurance, iFQ, D-53175 Bonn, Germany
关键词
PREDICTIVE-VALIDITY; SCIENCE; DECISIONS;
D O I
10.1007/s11192-009-0411-5
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
The German Research Foundation's (DFG) Emmy Noether Programme aims to fund excellent young researchers in the postdoctoral phase and, in particular, to open up an alternative to the traditional route to professorial qualification via the Habilitation (venia legendi). This paper seeks to evaluate this funding programme with a combination of methods made up of questionnaires, interviews, appraisals of the reviews, and bibliometric analyses. The key success criteria in this respect are the frequency of professorial appointments plus excellent research performance demonstrated in the form of publications. Up to now, such postdoc programme evaluations have been conducted only scarcely. In professional terms, approved applicants are actually clearly better placed. The personal career satisfaction level is also higher among funding recipients. Concerning publications and citations, some minor performance differences could be identified between approved and rejected applicants. Nevertheless, we can confirm that, on average, the reviewers indeed selected the slightly better performers from a relatively homogenous group of very high-performing applicants. However, a comparison between approved and rejected applicants did not show that participation in the programme had decisively influenced research performance in the examined fields of medicine and physics.
引用
收藏
页码:171 / 190
页数:20
相关论文
共 20 条
[1]   Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions [J].
Bornmann, L ;
Daniel, HD .
SCIENTOMETRICS, 2005, 63 (02) :297-320
[2]   Convergent validation of peer review decisions using the h index -: Extent of and reasons for type I and type II errors [J].
Bornmann, Lutz ;
Daniel, Hans-Dieter .
JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 2007, 1 (03) :204-213
[4]   Peer review for journals as it stands today - Part 2 [J].
Campanario, JM .
SCIENCE COMMUNICATION, 1998, 19 (04) :277-306
[5]   PREDICTIVE-VALIDITY OF QUALITY RATINGS OF NATIONAL-SCIENCE-FOUNDATION GRADUATE FELLOWS [J].
CHAPMAN, GB ;
MCCAULEY, C .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1994, 54 (02) :428-438
[6]   SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT AND RECOGNITION - STUDY IN OPERATION OF REWARD SYSTEM IN SCIENCE [J].
COLE, S ;
COLE, JR .
AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1967, 32 (03) :377-390
[7]  
*COMM EUR COMM, 2003, RES EUR RES AR ONE P
[8]  
*DFG, 2006, GUID E NOETH PROGR
[9]  
*DFG, 2002, E NOETH PROGR BRIEF
[10]   The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? [J].
Eisenhart, M .
RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2002, 32 (02) :241-255