Suchergebnisse

Unter Berücksischtigung der Auswirkungen der aktuellen Reform der sowjetischen Wissenschaftspolitik vermittelt der Autor einen Überblick - schwerpunktmäßig orientiert auf die Akademie der Wissenschaften der UdSSR - über die Wissenschaftsfinanzierung, die Wissenschaftsorganisation (System der Forschungsinstitutionen, Effektivität des R&D-Systems, Integration von Wissenschaft und Produktion) sowie über das wissenschaftliche Personal. (BIOst-Klk)

This paper provides an overview of the key policy instruments and capacity building policy tools used in each development phase of science and technology in Korea. In the 1960s and '70s, the Korean government built an institutional foundation for the development of science and technology. In the later part of the '60s, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the governmentfunded research institute became key organizations to implementation of policies intended to foster the advance of science and technology in Korea. The Korean government also focused on learning about and absorbing foreign technologies by licensing and by importing capital goods. From 1980 to 1997, the Korean government shifted its policy direction from technology learning to developing by its own scientific and technological capacity in high-technology sectors, which requires an indigenous R&D capability. It launched large-scale R&D programs that targeted certain fields to close what was a large gap between advanced countries and Korea. Korea became a fast follower, making a massive investment in certain fields, such as the semiconductor, electronics, steel and chemical industries. In the late 1990s, the Korean government developed a plan to build a national science and technology innovation system. Although the relevant infrastructures had been in place for 40 years and an R&D capability for innovation was in the works, those were not perceived to be systematically working together, which is crucial for sustainable innovation. The government response to this problem was to design a policy that tried to systemize the whole process of science and technology innovation.

Benutzerkommentar

Lecture at Harvard university, Cambridge, Mass., Apr. 13, 1976.

The authors would like to thank Rodrigo Costas and Antonio Callaba de Roa for their helpful comments in previous version of this paper as well as the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments. We would also like to thank Bryan J. Robinson for revising the text. Nicolas Robinson-García is currently supported with a FPU grant from the Spanish government, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. ; Background: The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. Objective: We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. Methods and materials: We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals. Results: 63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report. Discussion: Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas