Examples of RFFI applications on economics. What layer to spread grants: features of the dialogue between RFI and researchers. Nobel Prize for half a million rubles
General Provisions.
When transferring to the Foundation materials containing data that may become the object of copyright, including when submitting applications and reports on projects and other related documents, the project manager submitting the materials must ensure that the copyright was not violated during their creation. and other rights of third parties and there is a consent of the rightholders to submit them to the Foundation and to use them by the Foundation for the examination and for the publication of the research results.
All types of support for fundamental scientific research are carried out by the Foundation at competitive basis regardless of the age, academic title, academic degree or position held by the scientist, as well as the departmental affiliation of the scientific organization with which the scientist is in labor relations.
A scientist can participate as a leader in each type of competition in several areas of competitive activity. For example, to be simultaneously the leader of one project "a" and one project "p_a" (see Table 1).
These restrictions do not apply to competitions of the "g" type.
A scientist can also participate as a performer in each type of competition in several areas of competitive activity. For example, to be simultaneously the executor of one project "a" and one project "p_a". Participation as a performer in a project directed by an administratively subordinate person is prohibited.
The condition for the provision of financial support by the Fund is the obligation of scientists to make the research results public domain, by all means publishing them, including obligatory in Russian publications. When publishing any scientific work created as a result of research within the framework of a project funded by the Foundation, the authors must refer to the received grant indicating its number. A prerequisite is also the consent of the authors to publish the abstract on the supported project and scientific reports (in printed and electronic form) by the Foundation.
The funds allocated by the Fund are used in accordance with the approved "List of types of expenses for the implementation of RFBR projects", which is an appendix to the "Fund - Manager - Organization" agreement and posted on the RFBR website.
The following are not allowed to the competition:
- projects that are not designed according to the rules;
- Projects for the publication of scientific papers without a manuscript or trial translation;
- projects submitted by fax, by e-mail or on electronic media;
- projects received by the Fund after the announced deadline.
Also, research projects are not allowed to the competition, the name and content of which completely coincide with the name and content of any planned topic carried out in the organization and financed from the federal budget (responsibility for compliance with this condition rests with the project manager). In case of project support, you need to get registration number at the Center for Information Technology and Organ Systems executive power(CITiS).
It is forbidden to submit the same initiative project at the same time to various RFBR competitions (for example, for "a" and "m_a"). The project, supported by any competition, is prohibited to apply in the future to any competitions.
Materials submitted for the competition will not be returned (except for manuscripts, which the authors must pick up from the RFBR within three months after the approval of the results of the competition of projects for the publication of scientific papers). Substitutions of pages and changes in the text of the submitted project are not allowed.
When placing applications, it is allowed to use double-sided printing.
The Foundation notifies the project manager of the receipt of a printed copy of the project, of non-admission to the competition and of the results of the competition through the Grant-Express system (on the “Your projects” page in the “Status” field).
Expertise. All applications admitted to the competition undergo a multi-stage independent examination. Information about the content of projects and about passing the examination is strictly confidential. In accordance with the rules of the Foundation, experts and employees have no right to disclose it.
Conditions for the implementation of the supported projects. Funding for the project is carried out through the organization indicated by the project manager (F). This should be an organization - the place of work of the manager (P) or the organization in which the work on the project (K) is performed. Funding through other organizations is not permitted. The amount and terms of financing are communicated to the managers of projects and organizations (in the package of documents attached to the agreement "Fund - Manager - Organization").
If circumstances arise that prevent the project manager from fulfilling his functions, the Fund considers the feasibility and conditions for continuing to finance the work on this project. The decision to replace the project manager is made by the Bureau of the Foundation Council on the basis of the conclusion of the relevant expert council.
The project manager is obliged to immediately inform the Fund about changes in the conditions for the implementation of the project, including violations related to the expenditure of funds allocated by the Fund.
The change of the organization through which the project is financed is possible upon the proposal of the project manager in situations when: the organization's management does not fulfill the conditions of the Fund or interferes with the implementation of the project; the project manager (or team) has changed the place of work.
The relationship of the parties is governed by the agreement "Fund - Manager - Organization", which is legal document, establishing the mutual responsibility of the parties for the entire period of the project.
In accordance with the agreement, the PROJECT LEADER is OBLIGED TO:
1. Strictly within the time specified by the Fund, draw up an estimate of the costs of the project within the planned amount of funding and submit it for approval to the Fund.
2. Ensure the implementation of the project in accordance with the declared program and terms.
3. Ensure the targeted use of the funds allocated for the project in strict accordance with the rules of the Fund and the approved cost estimate within the annual volume of project financing.
4. Strictly in deadlines submit to the Foundation scientific and financial reports on the implementation of the project or its individual stages.
5. When publishing any scientific work created as a result of research within the framework of a project funded by the Foundation, refer to the received grant, indicating its number.
6. In case of impossibility to obtain the expected results and / or revealing the inexpediency (impossibility) of continuing the work, immediately inform the Fund about this and submit the final scientific and financial reports on the project.
7. Immediately inform the Fund in cases where the project manager is unable for any reason (long - more than three months - business trip, serious illness, etc.) to fulfill his duties.
THE PROJECT LEADER HAS THE RIGHT:
1. Spend the grant funds in accordance with the cost estimate approved by the Fund and with regulatory documents RFBR.
2. Correct the research program and cost estimate within the declared objectives and goals of the competitive project.
3. Correct the list of co-executing organizations.
4. Change the composition of the competition project executors, notifying the Fund about it in the report.
5. Prioritize the use of equipment purchased using the grant funds for the implementation of the project program during the entire period of work on the project.
6. Save the received grant and equipment, devices and durables (including software and materials) purchased at the expense of the FUND in case of moving to another job under the following conditions:
a) work on the competition project announced and financed by the grant will be continued;
b) The FOUNDATION will be notified of the transfer to another place of work by an appropriate letter within a month from the date of transfer;
c) the expert council for the relevant field of knowledge agrees with the change in the organization of project financing;
d) the rules specified for this case will be followed.
The manager also undertakes to inform the Fund in documents about the results of work on the project that have signs of patentability, commercial use or defense (dual) use, within two months from the date of completion of work on the project.
In case of obtaining the results of scientific and technical activities (RNTD), the manager is obliged, within the framework of the agreement "Fund - Manager - Organization", to record these results in accordance with the current legislation.
When submitting a project to the competition, the head determines the deadline for its implementation, which cannot be subsequently extended. The decision to continue financing the work on the project for the next year (within the specified deadline) is made by the Foundation on the basis of an expert review of annual scientific and financial statements... Timely submission by the project manager of annual and final reports (including in case of early completion of the project) - required condition Fund. In the event of a negative expert opinion on the report, the financing of the project may be terminated ahead of schedule on the basis of the decision of the Foundation's council on the proposal of the expert council. The decision of the Foundation Council is final. Claims based on the results of consideration of reports will not be accepted.
When examining grant applications to Russian foundations for the support of fundamental science, I drew attention to the repeated mistakes in preparing such projects, which often lead to their loss in the competition. The small explanations prepared by me from my own experience, of course, will not generate new scientific ideas, but they will help to clothe them in the form that the experts of the funds will better perceive.
It so happened that over the past 2-3 years I have reviewed about one hundred and fifty applications for grants from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Russian Science Foundation, the two main Russian foundations to support fundamental research in the natural sciences. For RFBR, when working on scientific councils for some competitions, I also reviewed the abstracts of more than 300 applications for grants in fundamental medicine. The system of work of foundations is not without flaws, however, if you work in Russia, in a state scientific institution, receiving a grant from these foundations is almost the only way to gain relative independence and conduct the research that you yourself conceived.
Why am I preparing this text? Despite numerous explanations from the participants in the process, applications submitted by young (and not so) researchers contain repeated errors that force experts to lower their ratings on certain characteristics of applications. As a result, potential winners with bright enough ideas, but insufficiently developed bids, lose the competition to simpler, sometimes trivial in thought, but correctly designed projects.
In this post, I will share my experience in peer reviewing biological and medical science applications. Hopefully my suggestions will help researchers improve their applications and compete more successfully in the grant battlefield. Note that I am speaking unofficially, without any connection with the position of other reviewers and representatives of foundations. I myself am not overly successful in winning grants - almost a shoemaker without boots - nevertheless, I will share my feelings from the other side of this rather sluggish grant river.
How grants are evaluated
First, the conditions of the competition are determined. They include thematic, financial (that is, the amount of money for a project) and sometimes age restrictions, requirements for the composition of teams, and the like. IN international projects the requirements for the foreign team are added. Now money on them is given out “bilaterally” - the corresponding parts of the joint application are independently financed by Russian and foreign funds.
Before the deadline is set, projects are sent to the established online application system, and their paper versions are sent to funds. At the first stage, a very small part of the applications is withdrawn on a formal basis - for example, due to errors in paperwork. Then the council for a specific competition appointed in advance by the foundation or an initiative group separated from it begins to select experts to evaluate the applications. Experts are selected semi-automatically from a list of candidates by subject area (there are special classifiers with codes) and by keywords specified by the authors of the application. Potential reviewers - usually from two to five for each application, depending on the competition - are sent a request for access to the materials in a special examination system. If the expert agrees to evaluate the project, then he must do this within a certain time. The examination is paid, but rather modestly, so for those who do it, it is akin to a social burden.
For each application, the expert fills out a questionnaire developed by the foundation, which gives the amount of points, and at the end writes a review provided to the authors of the application, and also gives an assessment to the project as a whole, approximately on a school four-point scale.
When all the projects submitted for the competition have been examined, the aforementioned advice - usually thematic, that is, only in biology, chemistry, etc. - is collected for the final decision. Its members tend to be the most active experts themselves. Since there are usually many applications, and there is only one decisive meeting, the council usually focuses on the pre-estimated passing score obtained by averaging the results of the examination. The passing score is obviously determined by the size of the grant and the total budget that the fund is willing to spend on the call. Advice, in fact, is necessary to address complex cases (for example, when experts' assessments differ greatly) and then it is likely to identify a conflict of interest. According to competitions, a small part of applications with a "semi-pass" score is usually formed, among which the best are collegially selected by the council and also supported. My practice shows that in 90% of cases, expert assessments converge very closely. The rest of the cases just require the attention of the council members in order to decide in real time what to do with them.
Is it worth serving?
A grant application is a lot of work, comparable to preparing a good publication. If you don't succeed, the chances are reduced. Recently I submitted an application together with partners from the States and was amazed at how detailed and thoroughly they are preparing a literary review, what quality the drawings provide.
Therefore, before starting to prepare a project, it would be good to find a and understanding of the project as a whole, an accurate idea of what you want to do during the project, and, of course, the time to write it. Write about what you understand and know, otherwise the experts will find you inaccurate and lower your scores. Sometimes researchers underestimate the expertise, getting used, for example, to work in departmental programs, where often for success it is necessary (as a rule, artificially!) To increase the significance of the project, directly promising the earliest possible implementation of the results. In case of guile, you will most likely be exposed, and you will be notified about it in the review.
Of course, in scientific research, you cannot be sure what kind of result you will get in the end. But to anticipate it at least hypothetically is necessary for the success of the project.
Therefore, apply on the topic in which you understand better than others, do not dive into foreign, albeit fashionable, areas. After all, even if you win a grant, it will be very difficult to fulfill it by re-acquainting yourself with a topic.
Dashing trouble the beginning: abstract
An abstract, an abstract, an abstract, if you like, is what the people responsible for appointing experts read, and with the help of information from the abstract, these experts are selected. Subject headings are also important - that is, to which specific field of science your project belongs - as well as keywords. In some grant systems, they automatically determine the repertoire of possible reviewers. Things are going on in a terrible hurry, and if the abstract is not clearly drawn up, it can get to the experts in the related field. The latter are not always fully guided by the "foreign" topic, they are able to overlook the merits of the project and underestimate its scores. And in general they will be angry because not everyone understands. Therefore, it is very important to pay close attention to these formalities, to correctly assign keywords. In the abstract of the project, you need to write about what you want to do, and leave one phrase at the beginning for the prerequisites of the work. Otherwise, you will get what is written in the next section.
"Cancer is a terrible disease"
There are times in the life of scientists when they need to convince officials of something. And officials, in general, understand only something simple or socially useful. You write that studying zinc finger protein # 127 will cure all patients and solve health problems for the next hundred years, and you have a chance. Many researchers, having communicated with departmental programs, directly transfer their experience from them and fill more than half of the application with arguments about the importance and necessity of the entire area. Nevertheless, the examination is carried out not by officials, but by acting researchers. And if you start your text with the fact that "cancer is a terrible disease," they start to get angry. Respect the expertise. Do not explain how often a disease occurs in a population, how to treat it, etc., if you want to investigate the phosphorylation of some abstract kinases in one cell line.
Even a small embellishment of the relevance of the work will not add credits to the project's piggy bank. In addition, the abstract significance of the work does not need to fill in most of the annotation. Often I had to read an abstract in which only the last phrase - as a conclusion from the previous one - related to what the authors still want to do. The beginning and the middle were devoted to how it is necessary, useful and important. Better not - the application contains special place, which is roughly called "the state of affairs in this area." True, it also needs to be supplied with information from which the essence of your project follows directly. If you want to study the components of an important molecular cascade associated with the development of tumors, then you need to write what is known about this cascade, and not about cancer in general, its epidemiology and social significance.
"ABCD / E-region of the gene xyZ flanked by sites modified by the FegH protein "
The opposite situation happens - the authors of the application right off the bat begin to write a specialized text, abundantly supplying it with abbreviations and anglicisms, rather reminiscent of scientific jargon. Nevertheless, easy-to-read, coherent text makes it much easier to work with the application. It is difficult even for a specialist in your field to deal with the intricacies of thought, when complex sentences make up whole paragraphs. Specificity should not overshadow the general idea that you reflect in the application. The severity of perception can lead to criticism and a decrease in the rating of the work.
Scientific novelty - not everything is clear
There are sections in the grant application forms where you need to describe the scientific novelty of the research. Install it, even in modern science, pretty hard. Small projects often supplement existing knowledge, sometimes copying the design of the first studies in this area. There is no need to be ashamed of this - today the results of experiments in almost all areas of natural sciences must undergo additional confirmation in independent laboratories. This is especially true for medicine. It is normal practice in evidence-based medical science to repeat the same analyzes on different populations and patient groups. When describing the background of your research and its novelty, there is no need to hide it. Let an expert assess your awareness. This is better than trying to show that you are the first in everything, and that there is a desert around you.
Nobel Prize for half a million rubles
Often you come across well-written and planned applications, but absolutely impossible if you compare the amount of work and the amount of money given out. Many grants are very modest, for example, the mass competition of the RFBR with the letter “a” is giving out 700 thousand rubles each this year. Of course, this is very small, but upper limit one grant is usually known in advance. Applications are being submitted where the cost of some reagents is several times higher than the upper limit of funding! This is rather severely penalized when evaluating, even if the project is excellent in all other respects. After all, you can't do research for the Nobel Prize for half a million rubles! It is also not worthwhile to mechanically transfer a lost application to another competition if the amount of funding for grants varies greatly between competitions. This will be noticed by the expert and will reduce the scores.
Another similar mistake when describing a job is a non-specific description of the scope of work. For example, people write that blood plasma samples from patients with such and such a disease will be compared with samples from healthy people and they do not indicate how many patients they will involve in the study. This is a trick, because when you don't specify anything exactly, bribes are smooth from you. Nevertheless, the expert will not approve of such a work plan. Because 10 thousand patients is an article in a conditional Nature, and 5 people - this is already a question for the project.
What should a beginner do?
When studying the application, the reserve that its authors have is assessed. Does this mean that it is impossible to get a grant on a new topic on which this researcher has not worked before? Of course it is not. Of course, this will be more difficult, since points will be lowered for a small backlog. But if the rest of the application is good, there is definitely a chance. In grant policy, as in many other areas, the principle "money for money" operates. That is, if the team is successful, it has a big backlog and a lot of grants on this topic, it is easier for it to get the next ones. It is important for budding researchers to know if they can get their first grant without a track record. Let's put it this way: it's harder. And sometimes it is expressly prohibited by the terms of the competition. If they had an internship in a research team, be it a coursework or a diploma, which ended with a joint article with their supervisors, they are considered to have a better chance of doing their project well. Therefore, experts like the presence of good publications even in the first grant application.
| Fund | Competition | Grant size, million rubles per year | Basic requirements for a manager |
|---|---|---|---|
| Russian Science Foundation | "Youth" contests competition of initiative research | 1,5–2 | Candidate degree, no more than 33 years at the time of the deadline for application submission, 3 publications in journals refereed by the Scopus or Web of Science library systems. |
| Russian Science Foundation | "Youth" contests of the President's program research projects- competition of scientific groups led by young scientists | 3–5 | Candidate or doctoral degree, no more than 35 years at the end of the application deadline, 5 publications in journals refereed by Scopus or Web of Science. |
| Russian Foundation for Basic Research | Mol-a competition "My first grant" | 0,5 | Maximum age 35 years at the end of the calendar year of application |
| Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences | Molecular and cell biology and post-genomic technologies | 1,4–2,8 | The leader must work at the RAS and have a decent publication activity, since applications are evaluated mainly according to the list of articles. Another requirement is the creation of your own research group. |
I read everything, now I will win a grant?
Like any competition, the fight for grants is, in a sense, a lottery. The share of grants won in the number of applications in the competitions I know ranges from 5 to 20%. This means that often the filter does not pass and very good applications. Experts are people too, and they can subjectively relate to certain areas within their area of specialization. Latent conflicts of interest are also frequent. It is important not to give up and submit the project to all available contests, to which the application you have created is suitable, taking into account the comments of the examination. And if, God forbid, in the review of the project you find incompetence or bias, do not hesitate to inform the funds about it. It is impossible to appeal in order to revise the results of the competition, but it is necessary to complain about the bad work of the expert. This can be noted in the relevant scientific councils and measures can be taken: for example, exclude this expert from the list for future competitions.
1.2.1. Cookies support
Cookies are used to track sessions when working with the subsystem. Accordingly, the "Allow Cookies" option must be enabled in your browser. Typically, this option is installed in browsers by default.
1.2.2. SSL protocol support
Since the work with the server is performed using the secure SSL protocol, SSL support must be enabled in your browser. This option is set by default for both browsers.
1.2.3. Setting up fonts.
For the system to work, it is necessary that the browser used must correctly reproduce the Russified fonts. In particular, it is important that the Russian text is displayed correctly in all form elements.
1.2.4. Screen size.
The recommended screen size of the monitor when working with the system is at least 600x800.
For questions related to setting up your browser to work with the system, you can contact: [email protected]
By selecting the "Your projects" menu item on the left of your personal page, you will be taken to a page with a list of all RFBR projects in which you participated as a leader or performer. If there are still unsigned or unregistered applications with the RFBR with your participation, prepared through the Intra-Grant system, they will also be shown at the end of this list.
For each project, its number, name, start year - end year, project status and the degree of your participation (leader or performer) are given. The "Project status" field can take the following values:
| "finished" | - the project was supported and its term has already been completed; |
| "supported" | - the project is supported and continues at the present time; |
| "not supported" | - an application was submitted, but the project was not supported; |
| "application" | - the application is registered with the RFBR, but there is still no decision on funding or rejection; |
| "new application, signed by " | - a new application has been prepared and signed by the project manager, but has not yet been registered with the RFBR; |
| "new application, not signed " | - the application has been created, but has not yet been signed by the project manager (and may not have been fully completed yet). |
To start working with a specific project or application, you must first select the corresponding row in the table.
Purpose of buttons:
| "Create" | - creating a new application; |
| "Application" | - for new unsigned applications - go to the list of application forms with the ability to fill out and edit them; for all others - viewing in a new window information from the application forms of the project; |
| "Reports" | - only for supported projects - go to the list of reports for this project (for unfinished projects - with the ability to create a new report); |
| "Financing" | - only for supported projects - information about project financing; |
| "Exit" | - return to the personal page. |
You can view the content of the application forms by clicking on the "Application" button on the page with the list of your projects. This opens a new window containing in the left part a list of forms related to this kind competition, and on the right side - the content of a specific form selected in the list on the left.
For the convenience of work, not only numbers are given, but also the names of form fields. For forms that allow multiple copies (for example, information about performers or organizations), a general list is displayed first, from which you can already view detailed information for each object.
At the end of the list of forms on the left, there is a link that allows you to display all forms at once in a separate window in a form ready for printing or saving to a file.
To create a new application, you must click on the "Create" button on the page with a list of your projects.
You will be offered to select a list of the types of competitions for which applications are currently being accepted. After choosing the type of competition, you will be taken to a page with a list of forms required when submitting an application for this type of competition.
When creating a new application, the system automatically substitutes your personal data in Form 2 and assigns you the status of "Project manager". The application must be filled out only from the manager's personal card. When filling out an application from a personal card of the performer, it will be impossible to sign the application.
Similarly, the application automatically includes data about the organization in which you work, with the status "Place of work of the project manager". When editing an application, you can change the status, for example, assign your organization the status of "Project financing organization" as well.
The list of new application forms for each form contains the following information: form code (form number from the competition announcement), form name, comment and form status. The commentary provides Additional Information, in particular on the obligation to fill out specific forms, or in what cases the form must be submitted.
The "Status" field can take the following values:
For forms that allow multiple copies (for example, information about the project executors), the "Status" field contains information about the number of created forms of this type and their general status (for example, "all checked" or "not all checked").
To switch to the editing mode of a specific form, click on its name in the list of forms. This will open a window containing all the required fields of this form (some of them may be optional).
After filling out the form, click the "Check" button at the end of the page. You can also exit without saving changes by clicking the "Exit" button, or save the form without validation as it is in this moment is located by clicking the "Save" button.
After clicking the "Check" button, a formal check is made for completeness and correctness of filling in the form fields. If errors are found, an additional window opens with a list of found errors and an indication of the names of the fields in which errors were made. To quickly jump to these fields in the form editing window, you can simply click on the field name in the additional window.
After correcting the errors, click the "Check" button again. Repeat these operations until there are no errors in filling out the form. After successfully passing the formal check, you will again be taken to the page with a list of application forms and can continue to work with other forms. In this case, the checked form receives the "Checked" status.
The order in which the forms are filled out does not matter. In addition, you can pause and log out at any time by selecting the "End Session" item in the menu on the left. Later you can log in again and continue working.
When filling out forms containing large text fields, you can copy the text prepared in advance into these fields from text editor(For example, Microsoft Word or others) via the clipboard. If you fill in such fields manually, we recommend that you periodically save the edited form by clicking on the "Save" button at the bottom of the page.
When working with forms that allow multiple instances, you first go to a page containing a list of instances of this type of form (for example, a list of Form 2 for executors and project managers). Using the buttons "Create", "Modify" and "Delete" on this page, you can accordingly create a new blank copy of the form, edit or delete it.
You can also use the "Copy" button to open in an additional window a list of your colleagues who participated in your previous projects. By clicking on the name of the person you want to include in the new application, you will automatically create a new copy of the form, which has already been filled out. personal information... Similarly, you can add organizations in Form 3, but you can choose from the complete list of organizations registered in the database.
If for any reason you have decided not to send a new registration application, you can delete it by clicking on the "Delete" button on the page containing a list of application forms.
After all the forms are completed and verified, i.e. have the status "Verified", you can sign the application. To do this, click on the "Sign" button on the page with a list of required forms. In this case, your application is subject to the final check, and if no errors are found, it receives the "Signed" status. If errors are found, an additional window will open with a list of the errors found and the names of the forms in which the errors were made. To quickly switch to editing the form, you can simply click on the name of the form in the additional window.
After signing, the application is sent for registration to the scientific department of the RFBR, corresponding to the field of knowledge and the type of competition specified in your application.
After the application is signed, you will no longer be able to make changes to the application forms. If, nevertheless, such a need arises, it is necessary to contact the corresponding scientific department of the RFBR. If the application has not yet been registered, then the department employee can remove the "Signed" status from the application.
In addition, the status "Signed" can be revoked by an employee of the RFBR scientific department if he discovers that the application lacks some essential information. In this case, you will receive an e-mail with a request to modify the application, and in the list of your projects the application will again appear with the "Not signed" status.
After your application has been successfully registered, its status in the list of your projects will change (instead of "New application", "Application" will appear). After that, you need to print the application and title page, sign them and send them to RFBR within 5 days. To print all application forms, click on the "Application" button in the list of your projects, and then in the lower part of the left frame of the window that opens, click on the "All forms" item. From the window that opens, you can print or save the full text of your application in a file. The title page of the application is printed in the same way.
Please also note that after registration, your application has a number that is already indicated on your printed copies of the application. You can also refer to it when contacting RFBR.
To register a report under an RFBR grant, go to the list of project reports by clicking on the "Reports" button on the page with a list of your projects. If reports on this project are being accepted at a given time, then at the bottom of the page you will find the "Create" button. By clicking on it, you will go to the list of reporting forms required by the RFBR to submit reports on this type of competition in the given year.
In the future, your actions for filling out forms, checking them and signing the report are similar to your actions when working with applications.
If your report contains graphs, formulas, figures, tables, photographs and other elements necessary to adequately represent the results obtained during the course of the project, you can prepare an additional file in RTF format (for example, with help from Microsoft Word) or PDF (for example, using Adobe Acrobat Exchange). The following information must be included in this file:
- project number;
- Project name;
- Full name of the project manager;
- a short annotation in Russian (in accordance with Form 501);
- a brief annotation on English language(in accordance with Form 502);
- a detailed scientific report (in accordance with Form 503).
You can also include a list of scientific publications produced as part of the project work.
To send this file, select the line "Full-text scientific report in PDF or RTF format" in the list of reporting forms. On the page that opens, click the "Browse .." button next to the "File location" field and find the required file on your computer. Then click the "Submit" button at the end of the page. After that, you need to wait for the system to confirm that the download was successful. This may take some time depending on your file size and connection speed.
You can only attach one file to a project. If the file has already been uploaded, you can replace it by uploading a new file.
After successful download, you can view the file for verification by clicking on the "View" button on the same page.
The report can be printed at any time, including before signing or registering the report. To do this, use the "Print" button in the list of project reports. When you click on it, two windows open, one of which displays all the completed report forms, and the other displays the finished title page. It is necessary to send to the RFBR the forms printed after the signing of the report (they must be labeled "Signed"), in two copies.
Before sending the printed version to the RFBR, you must put on the title page and after the corresponding forms all required signatures(the project manager, its participants, the chief accountant of the organization) and printing.
Funding for scientific research in Russian academic institutes and universities is carried out mainly at the expense of funds allocated by scientific foundations or targeted programs on a competitive basis. The main state scientific foundations that finance fundamental research in Russia include the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation (RHNF), the Presidential Grant Council Russian Federation and the Grant Council of the Government of the Russian Federation for state support scientific research.
To receive a grant for a specific research project, you need to submit an application to the fund, drawn up in accordance with the terms of the announced competition. Each application is first evaluated by experts, and then the expert council of the fund, which makes a decision on the allocation of funding or on denial of support. This article provides general advice on how to prepare applications for grant competitions for Russian scientific foundations. These tips are based a lot on your own experience and can serve as a starting point for exploring key sources in the arts for research funding. These recommendations can be useful for a novice researcher who needs to independently prepare applications for grants from scientific foundations.
Fund selection
It is advisable to start preparing and submitting applications for participation in competitions for grants of scientific foundations for conducting research already in student years. Indeed, it is quite difficult to win a grant to support research by an independent scientific group without experience in managing individual grants. Participate in competitions for research funding for undergraduate and graduate students conducted in your university, city, region. The experience gained will gradually allow us to prepare high-quality and successful applications.
It is best to start with grant applications with relatively little funding. As a rule, in tenders with a small allocation of funds, it is simplified financial statements therefore, less effort will be required to spend on project management. When preparing applications for competitions for small grants, the main attention can be paid to the scientific component of the project.
Read carefully the terms and conditions of the programs of various public and private foundations and choose the grant competition that best suits your work. Choose reliable foundations with a good reputation and an expert council of leading scientists. It is necessary to clearly understand which projects the organizers of the competition plan to support: fundamental or applied, short-term or long-term, individual or collective. It is not necessary to take part in all available contests - this will allow you to correctly allocate time between scientific work and seeking funding. It is important to remember that it is incorrect to send the same application to several funds at the same time.
It is advisable to look at the lists of projects supported by the Foundation in previous years, which will allow you to get an idea of the preferences of the expert council on research topics and the qualifications of project managers. In recent years, many foundations have published statistics on the rate of rejected applications, areas of expertise and the age of the project managers supported. Analyzing this information can be useful in deciding whether this competition is suitable for funding your research project.
It is imperative to carefully study the expert's questionnaire and the criteria by which the grant application will be evaluated. Remember that an expert is usually a very busy person and will not have the ability to search / query additional information about the project and its performers. All information that meets the criteria for evaluating the project must be reflected in the application. If some criterion, for example, the prospects for the application of the results, for objective reasons is not suitable for evaluating your project, try to explain this in the text of the application.
Project title and annotation
Annotation is summary applications. It should reflect all components of the project: the relevance of the research, the purpose of the work, the main objectives of the research, the strategy and approaches used, the novelty of the expected results, their significance for this field of science and possible practical application. Tips for each section are provided below. When preparing your annotation, use common terminology, avoid using abbreviations and technical jargon.
Frequent mistakes of novice applicants include the absence in the annotation of the formulation of the scientific problem being solved. Determine what type of research you plan to conduct: filling gaps in the existing body of scientific data, resolving existing contradictions, or disruptive research on the scientific front.
Useful when preparing annotations specific examples, in which one can find successful formulations and expressions, but which, of course, cannot be completely copied. Examples of annotations of supported applications for participation in research grant competitions can be found on the websites of some major scientific foundations, for example, the Russian Science Foundation: http://grant.rscf.ru/searchproj#
Keywords should be consistent with the research topic, as they are often used to select the experts who will evaluate the application, and the section of the expert council that will select the best projects.
The name of the project should not be too scientific and may even be original, emphasizing the relevance of your ideas. At the same time, the name should not be too broad and general. When formulating a topic, try not to be verbose. For the first version of the title, it is recommended to use the keywords of the project.
Goals and objectives of the project
The scientific goal of the project must be formulated immediately and very clearly. Of course, the planned research should be very high level... At the same time, even an original and interesting scientific idea does not always find support from experts. Therefore, the main goal of the research in the grant application should be, on the one hand, relevant and, on the other hand, achievable. In other words, it is important to strike a balance between the value of research for a given field of science and the risk of project failure.
After the formulation of the global research goal, the tasks of the project are separately presented, the solution of which is necessary to achieve the goal. Specific tasks should be aimed not only at collecting and analyzing new data, but at testing hypotheses, elucidating mechanisms, or creating new theories. The hypotheses put forward must be testable and well substantiated. The formulation of the goals and objectives of the research is, in principle, similar to their formulation in a master's or Ph.D. thesis. Students and graduate students can be advised to first familiarize themselves with the manuals for preparing dissertations for defense.
Research plan
The research plan is perhaps the most important part of the proposal. Take sufficient time to prepare this section. A carefully thought-out research plan, depending on the requirements of the tender documentation, should be divided into stages, each of which should include specific steps or actions. The project execution plan must be logically built and clearly structured and must strictly correspond to the tasks set. Make a case for each planned series of experiments. Explain the benefits of your proposed experimental design or model you are developing. The planned study must be of high quality, that is, assume the use of all the necessary controls and adequate methods for analyzing the results. It is important to note that the project plan should allow assessing the feasibility of the individual stages of the study.
It is worthwhile to provide additional scenarios for the project. For example, indicate possible alternative approaches in the event that the main approach cannot be implemented for objective reasons. It is advisable to plan for the use of several complementary strategies to achieve the assigned tasks. In addition, it is possible to mention which paths of project execution will be implemented in case of refutation of one of the tested hypotheses. This way, you can minimize the vulnerabilities of the application.
If this is your first time applying for an independent independent project as a research team leader, try to clarify in the text how your project differs from the projects of the research team leader in which you previously worked. Experts sometimes point out as one of the weaknesses of the projects of novice researchers that "the project is a continuation of the work of a large team of scientists" or "it is difficult to understand whether the announced project leader will be its real leader." Researchers' experience different countries shows that it is rather difficult to get support for the first major project if the application manager did not change his place of work after receiving the degree.
The section "Methods and approaches" should contain information on strategies and approaches to research. It is desirable to break this section into sub-paragraphs with separate subheadings. The grant application is not required to provide detailed protocols and descriptions of the selected methodologies. However, it is important not only to list the methods that you plan to use to implement your ideas, but also to demonstrate their adequacy for solving the assigned tasks. Try to pay special attention to substantiating the effectiveness of the chosen methods and approaches, using literature data. Indicate new methods or approaches that you develop that are often evaluated separately by experts. If you plan to conduct part of the research in collaboration with other research teams, it is advisable to indicate which experiments will be carried out jointly.
Literature review
The section "Literature review" should acquaint the expert with current state the chosen field of research and at the same time demonstrate the completeness of the applicant's knowledge of the literature data on the topic being developed. This section is often compiled after the preparation of the main research plan. At the beginning of the section, it is desirable to reflect the view of the problem being solved from the side of the entire field of science. State clearly only the basic information that allows you to lead the reader to the need to solve the indicated problem. Do not go deep into particular details, remember that the text should be easy to read. Show a critical attitude to the literature data, state the options for the interpretation of the available information by different scientific schools. This section may include a list of cited literature, including sources in highly rated peer-reviewed journals. In some cases, quotes from leading experts in the field are welcome.
In the conclusion of this section, it is necessary to briefly outline the main conclusion from the analysis of literature data, substantiating the relevance of the chosen direction of research (for example, "filling in gaps" or resolving existing contradictions) and its novelty.
Expected results
In the section "Expected Results" it is worth listing both the specific scientific results that will be obtained during the implementation of the project, and their possible application. Consider in advance whether the research will test any hypotheses, create new theories, and draw certain conclusions. Achievement of expected results should be verifiable in case of project support, therefore it is advisable to formulate them in the form of separate statements. State the limitations on the applicability and interpretation of the intended results yourself. It is also important to briefly discuss what long-term prospects the completion of your planned research will open up. As a practical application of the results of fundamental research, one can indicate their use in the educational process.
Many foundations in one of the sections of the proposal ask you to indicate the so-called expected performance indicators (or reporting indicators). Please be careful when filling out these tables. The expected indicators should not be overestimated, especially the number of defended dissertations and the number of publications in journals indexed in scientometric databases. If the project is supported, the supervisor will be responsible for meeting these indicators. If the indicators specified in the application are not met, the fund at any stage may stop funding the project and add the name of the head to the so-called "black list", preventing him from taking part in the fund's competitions for several years. It is important to earn and maintain a reputation as a reliable and committed grant holder.
Existing backlog
In the section "Available groundwork" of the application, in addition to the preliminary results obtained or the developed tools, it is worth mentioning separately information indicating the achievability of the expected results. This can be information about the qualifications of the leader and performers, the amount of research carried out earlier by the scientific group, the publications available on the project topic, the presence of unique conditions or installations created for the implementation of the project, international cooperation.
Attach copies of the most significant publications you have that are relevant to the research topic. The expert will be able to familiarize himself with them, which will convince him that the qualifications of the project executors are sufficient to solve the assigned tasks. The scientific productivity of the project manager is the main criterion for assessing his qualifications.
Take the opportunity to add additional information about the scientific achievements of the project leader and executors to the application text. Indicate for each participant a list of awards, diplomas for scientific reports at conferences, certificates of completion of refresher courses, participation in scientific schools, including with personal grant support, information about the management of graduate works and student success.
Project management
In a number of tenders, the “level of project management” is designated as one of the essential criteria for evaluating the application. In this case, pay special attention to the planning of the study. List the stages and deadlines for individual work, draw up a detailed project schedule, procurement plan, travel and expedition dates. Indicate the responsibilities and employment of all project implementers.
Budgeting - important stage preparation of an application for a grant competition. List all planned costs, including salaries for project executors, purchase of equipment and materials, payment of expenses for expeditions and business trips to participate in conferences, payment for third-party services, and organizational overheads for technical support of the project. When drawing up the cost estimate, follow the instructions and recommendations of the fund specified in the tender documentation, and do not overstate the requested amount of funding. For each cost type, provide a detailed justification to allow the assessors to ensure that the project manager knows what the grant will be spent on. Check the cost of equipment and Supplies, as well as what purchases the fund is allowed to carry out (for example, some funds do not allow spending the grant funds for the purchase of office equipment and computers).
Describe in detail on which site you plan to conduct the research. It is worth pointing out that the work will be carried out using the equipment of the resource centers of the university or institute. It is advisable to mention whether the material and technical base at your disposal is sufficient for the implementation of the project.
The final stage of preparing the application
Check how relevant and logical the planned studies are.
Take away great attention registration of the application. Clearly formulate your thoughts, structure the text of the application, break it down into subsections, paragraphs, etc. Check the design of references to the cited literature.
Ask your colleagues, including experts in another field, to read the content of the project and give their comments (so-called "internal peer review"). Peer feedback will help you identify weaknesses in a proposal before it falls into the hands of experts. Therefore, it is advisable to plan your time in this way in order to prepare the first version of the application in advance. Even if the deadline for writing an application is very tight, it is worth postponing the text for a few days in order to then look at it with a fresh eye.
Carefully check the correctness of all documents before sending an application to the fund (both in electronic and paper versions). Often, the absence of one signature or certificate can serve as a reason for rejection of an application for technical reasons. Some foundations accept applications online; in this case, it is necessary to clarify whether it is required to attach a scanned version of the signed documents.
If the project was not supported
The share of projects supported depends on the initial requirements of the fund for the manager and the team of executors and on the amount of allocated funding. Your project may be unsupported. Try to use this opportunity to improve in the area of "grant writing". A prepared application and carefully planned research is an important result of your work, which can be used in the future.
If the fund refuses to support your project, it is imperative to request expert feedback, as well as the results of a technical review. Dealing objectively with expert feedback is a great opportunity to improve both your proposal preparation skills and your research design. After a careful study of the experts' reviews, you need to decide whether it is worth improving the application in order to submit it to the competition again. It is advisable to request expert feedback even if your project has been supported. As a rule, the expert opinion reflects the strengths and weaknesses of the project, so familiarity with it will allow you to adjust the research plan.
In some cases, expert opinions for the same project may be exactly the opposite. If you believe that the expert's opinion was drawn up unprofessionally or in violation of ethical standards, it is worth contacting the fund after a certain time with objections to the expert's conclusions. This will not affect the results of the completed competition in relation to the application you submitted, but will improve the quality of the fund's expertise in the future. In response to expert opinions, provide details of the discovered contradictions and "arguments against", but in no case discuss the personality and professionalism of the expert.
And if your project was supported and you won a grant, then you can be congratulated! Remember that you will need to set aside time to conclude a contract or agreement for research funding.
McInnes R., Andrews B., Rachubinski R. Guidebook For New Principal Investigators. Advice on Applying for a Grant, Writing Papers, Setting up a Research Team and Managing Your Time. 2005:
Why the number of grant winners Russian Foundation Fundamental Research (RFBR) almost halved in 2017, how it is not necessary to limit the amount of funding for science and why it is important to make reporting and examination of grants more open, read the material prepared by the Society of Scientists .. Comment from RFBR at the time of publication of the material could not be received.
On May 23, 2017, the General Meeting of the Interregional Society of Scientists (ONR) adopted a resolution that criticized some aspects of the policy of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and made proposals to increase the transparency of the fund's work. On June 23, the resolution was sent to the RFBR, the Ministry of Education and Science and the Administration of the President of the RF. One and a half months later (instead of the one stipulated by the legislation), the ONR received a response from the RFBR, which can hardly be called anything other than a reply. It is important to note that this is not the first round of correspondence between ONR and RFBR. Resolution General meeting The ONR was a reaction to the lack of a response from the RFBR leadership to the letter of the ONR Council to the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (Ref. No. 16-10 of 11/29/2016), which was signed by about 750 people, including the fund's grantees. The site already wrote about this letter and the reactions to it in the fall of 2016.
What is it that the scientific community and the RFBR leadership cannot agree on?
ONR is concerned that the share of the fund allocated for initiative grants to scientific groups without limiting the research topic and age of participants (competition "a") has decreased to 40% due to an increase in the share of funding for "oriented fundamental interdisciplinary" ("ofi-m") contests with a narrow theme and often easily guessed winners. At the same time, the foundation made a decision to make the amount of funding for grants for competition "a" the same for all projects (700 thousand rubles), regardless of the composition of the team and the content of the research being carried out. As a result of this policy of the RFBR leadership, the percentage of winners of the competition "a" in 2017 amounted to only 15-18% of the number of applications submitted, in contrast to 30% in previous years, and hundreds of scientific groups and thousands of scientists working at the world level have lost the opportunity to continue their research. Indeed, in the budget of the majority scientific organizations and universities, funding for science is limited to the payment of salaries, and there are no funds for the purchase of equipment, materials and travel expenses.
The NRO insisted on the implementation of the following measures:
Set the level of expenditures on initiative projects of scientific groups without limiting the topic and age of the leader (competition "a") in the amount of at least 70% of the Fund's budget.
Stop the practice of determining the winners of the Fund's competitions without the participation of specialized professional expert councils in the fields of knowledge: such councils should conduct an examination of all projects, including youth projects. As for interdisciplinary projects, they should be considered by several specialized expert councils.
Stop the corrupt practice of holding competitions with a narrow theme, which is formed by a limited group of people.
Cancel the fixed amount of the grant within the framework of competition "a" and return to the practice of assigning the amount of funding depending on the composition of the research team and the real needs of the project.
To oblige the RFBR management to publish brief summaries of reports on all completed projects supported by the Foundation, along with a complete list of all publications on the project.
None of these proposals by the UPR received any meaningful response. Moreover, the requirement for the publication of annotations of reports on completed RFBR projects, along with a list of all publications on the project, was not even mentioned in the RFBR response, although it is a norm of the current legislation that all recipients of budget funds must comply with. Why the RFBR leadership is delaying the resolution of this issue, coming into conflict with the law, one can only guess. Apparently, the fact is that the publication of the list of publications for many large grants "ofi-m" can raise serious questions of the scientific community.
The RFBR response contains the following passage: “As for the share of competitions in oriented fundamental research, RFBR, when forming the ratio between initiative and thematically oriented competitions, relies on the need to abandon the practice of distributing limited budget funds in a thin layer between all projects. Funds should be allocated on the basis of competitive selection to obtain the desired end result. "
Leaving the heads of the RFBR on the conscience of the idea that the goal of fundamental science is not to obtain new knowledge, but to "the desired final result", let us analyze the statistics of the 2015-2016 "ofi-m" competitions in order to understand how they conducted competitions for these larger, thick-coated grants.
1.Although the “ofi-m” contests are positioned as oriented fundamental interdisciplinary research on the most pressing breakthrough problems, the analysis shows that their interdisciplinarity is often artificial, and the topics of most of them are well described by the main headings of the RFBR in areas 01-08 (see. Table 1).
Table 1. Correspondence of competitions "ofi-m" 2015-2016. the main directions of the RFBR rubricator 01-08.
| № | Scientific direction according to the RFBR rubricator | Competition numbers "ofi-m" |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mathematics, computer science and mechanics | |
| 2 | Physics and Astronomy | , , , |
| 3 | Chemistry | , , , |
| 4 | Biology and medical science | , , , , , |
| 5 | Earth sciences | , |
| 6 | Sciences about man and society | |
| 7 | Information technology and computing systems | |
| 8 | Fundamentals of Engineering Sciences | , |
2. According to the charter, the RFBR supports exclusively open civil research. In this regard, the competition "ofi-m" No. 609 "Security and Counteraction to Terrorism" raises serious questions. Its subject matter is closely related to closed research and development, as evidenced not only by the topic of the competition, but also by the fact that the names of the projects of the winners of this competition and the names of their leaders are apparently classified. In any case, only the numbers of the winning applications are listed on the RFBR website.
3.In 12 out of 23 cases, i.e. In more than half of the 2015-2016 "ofi-m" competitions, the share of winners was more than 30% of the number of applications submitted, i.e. competition for these large grants was less than the “smeared with a thin layer” RFBR grants of the 2015-2016 “a” competition. (see Table 2). Only in 3 out of 23 competitions "ofi-m" 2015-2016. the percentage of winners was less than 18% of the number of applications, which is slightly higher than the share of winners of the main RFBR “a” competition in 2017.
In 3 out of 23 competitions "ofi-m" grants were received by 50% or more of the participants of the competition, which seems completely unacceptable for grants on priority topics, the size of which significantly exceeds the size of the grants of the competition "a".
Table 2. Percentage of winners of the 2015-2016 “ofi-m” contests.
| Competition number | Number of participants | Number of winners | % of winners |
|---|---|---|---|
| 501-502 | 776 | 111 | 14,30 |
| 503 | 30 | 14 | 46,67 ** |
| 504 | 54 | 24 | 44,44 ** |
| 505 | 40 | 14 | 35.00 ** |
| 506 | 143 | 18 | 12,59 |
| 507 | 94 | 23 | 24,47 |
| 601 | 75 | 26 | 34,67 ** |
| 602 | 21 | 8 | 38,10 ** |
| 603 | 107 | 32 | 29,91 |
| 604 | 69 | 23 | 33,33 ** |
| 605 | 64 | 19 | 29,69 |
| 606 | 41 | 17 | 41,46 ** |
| 607 | 20 | 10 | 50,00 |
| 608 | 28 | 15 | 53,57 |
| 609 | 216 | 39 | 18,06 |
| 610 | 63 | 22 | 34,92 ** |
| 611 | 98 | 27 | 27,55 |
| 612 | 181 | 25 | 13,81 |
| 613 | 27 | 14 | 51,85 |
| 614 | 48 | 19 | 39,58 ** |
| 615 | 60 | 20 | 33,33 ** |
| COMFI * | 120 (385) | 31 (107) | 26 (28) |
** - Number of complex projects (number of scientific groups). Each complex COMFI project involved at least three scientific groups from different organizations. Bold highlighted contests in which the share of winners was 50% of participants or more, those contests where the share of winners is from 30% to 50% and in italics- contests with a share of winners of less than 18%.
In the annotation of the competition 608 “Creation of intelligent sensory and biomechatronic rehabilitation technologies for patients with severe lesions of the sensorimotor system based on the integration of the latest achievements of brain sciences, modern methods adaptive processing and decoding of brain signals and success in the development of mechatronics ”7 out of 11 organizations in which the winners of this competition work. What, if not a predictable result, can be called such sagacity of those who proposed the topic of this competition. Another organization, LLC Center for Aerospace Medicine and Technologies, is located on the territory of the IBMP RAS. Its supervisor (she is also a grant recipient) defended her thesis under the guidance of another winner of this competition, who works at the Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Two more winners work in the same laboratory of the I.Ph. I.P. Pavlova, and one manages this laboratory, and the other is his subordinate. The percentage of winners of the 608 competition was a record 53.6%, i.e. competition was about three times less than for grants from competitions "a" in 2017, despite the fact that the amount of the grant "ofi-m" exceeds the size of the grant of competition "a" four to five times.
What is the difference between youth and adult science? What determines the need to form a separate "youth" interdisciplinary expert council bypassing the main thematic expert councils 01-08, which represent specialists in all fields of science?
What motivated the RFBR's decision to equalize the value of initiative grants "a" and why should a project of a group of 1-3 theorists receive the same funding as a study of a team of 10 experimenters who, in addition to a computer and business trips, need to buy equipment and materials?
Note that we are talking about the most massive and, in theory, the most democratic Russian scientific foundation, which finances the work of tens of thousands of scientists and provides the lion's share of Russian publications in publications indexed by the international Web of Science database. The answers to these questions are of national importance and will largely determine the future of our science.
The experience of the ONR “dialogue” with the RFBR leadership raises an inevitable question: how will the RAS leadership interact with the scientific community if the Chairman of the RFBR Council V.Ya. Panchenko to be elected President of the Russian Academy of Sciences?
Since, unfortunately, a constructive discussion with the RFBR leadership has not yet taken shape, we consider it necessary to involve the RFBR founder, the RF Government and the RF Ministry of Education and Science, as an arbitrator. It is these executive authorities that are responsible for the efficiency of spending taxpayers' funds on fundamental scientific research in Russia.
The fastest boat in the world!
The history of the Off-White brand
Habakkuk: how the British tried to build an aircraft carrier out of ice Why the project was curtailed