The TRV-hobby continues to publish the detailed opinions of scientists about the first competition of the Russian Scientific Fund for the conduct of fundamental and search research by individual scientific groups.

It turned out completely as always, at least in terms of chemistry and materials. Among the supported there are worthy project managers, but you will not immediately notice them against the backdrop of the usual chemical Politburo. The most odious personalities are visible by the names of projects in the style of "creation" of the scientific "physical-chemical" foundations ... ". Not so clearly odious, as well as the director-academic close associates are noticeable by more subtle signs. Ionch and IFHE are especially impressive. As if they called the directors and asked - whom to support? Or maybe intuitively guessed, or just a bad habit. These nuances, however, are not significant in a conversation about the examination that solves two tasks: so that not a single unworthy project is supported, and not a single worthy is rejected. Another is a violation of professional morality and the misuse of state funds.

I'm terribly ashamed. I am personally to blame for what happened as a result of the first RNF competition, and all experts and members of the Expert Council are just as personally to blame. After all, no one screamed in a timely manner that already in the first RNF competitions the gross violation of the examination procedure recorded in the documents was made. Or maybe someone screamed in a whisper.

... how naive we were ...

It was necessary, damn it, to the last word read all the papers - no matter how bureaucratic they may be. If I, from the very beginning, despite the projects that had fallen up and the term of 2 weeks, carefully read the document “Procedure for conducting an examination of scientific, scientific and technical programs and projects submitted to the competition of the Russian Scientific Fund” [1] ... It says “... in assessments of the experts of the Foundation, a point system is used”. And there were no points in expert profiles - it was only possible to choose a particularly fixed response version. Quite often, none of the proposed options corresponded to the situation, and I had to write a comment in text windows. And where is such a naivety at my age? -I thought that since they were asked to write about each item “up to 1 page”, then written somehow ... about the equivalence of the selected points of this or that points and about accounting in a point assessment of comments (often forced), I asked only at the end of May, sending a rather extensive letter to the faceless addresses of the first-wound competitions.

Even receiving this letter has not yet been confirmed, despite its repeated sending. But they sent a project of the third competition for the examination - I had to refuse it and use the window to explain the reasons for the refusal in order to once again ask to answer questions ...

Whoever puts points for experts - a person or a machine gun - a violation is completely obvious, and we all walked him.

There are codes-but there are no coordinators

Some collective mind interacts with experts that clearly has not developed to the level of answers to non-standard questions. Or just a machine gun (technically, it should be recognized, made very decently). And he is trying to appoint experts by comparing the codes of projects and experts. And the codes are from the RNF classifier, which is a frank compilation based on far from modern sources. The degree of fragmentation for different sections is completely different, a number of formulations allow a double interpretation.

In physical chemistry (03-400), completely unthinkable combinations “03-405 nanostructures and clusters were formed. Supramolecular chemistry. Colloidal systems ”or“ 03-406 Chemical thermodynamics. Physical chemistry of the surface and inter -phase boundaries. Adsorption". In the motor method of selection , adequate experts refuse many projects proposed by him due to the mismatch of specialization, and inadequate experts dashingly review any projects in a short time.

Physical chemistry is probably lucky - even if its device is not understood, but although the right to exist is recognized. But, for example, there is no atomic physics in the classifier at all, although in Russia it is very much, and throughout the world it is now a violently developing area, with regular Nobel results. Such foams are obtained if the Fund collects its expert council by status signs, and not according to the obvious principle of uniform representativeness of specializations. But there are also, among the status, quite worthy professionals ... What would they not invite specialized coordinators to analyze the rubble?

Google as a scientific examination tool

The expert questionnaire includes subparagraphs, the choice of which, in principle, is impossible on the basis of information from the application. The answers are literally required by investigative-searching. Even a thorough expert can not always find the necessary information in open sources. At the same time, it is impossible to simply skip any point: to complete the examination, you have to choose the option “... or information is not enough to evaluate”, which clearly meets the lowest (possibly zero) score. Here, for example, what is the design:

1.3. The presence of experience in leadership and the implementation of scientific projects.

The leader over the past 5 years has has experience of successful leadership:

• several significant research projects,
• one significant research project,
• He did not carry out the scientific leadership of projects, or there is no sufficient information for evaluation.

The appropriate applications list the projects, but no information is provided for their content and effectiveness (“success”). Therefore, you have to look for AcknowledGements in articles, reports on the sites of funds and organizations, as well as just use Google. I will give an example of the results of such a wanted list according to one of the projects sent to me (quote from an expert opinion):

“It is easy to make sure that the representative of the“ network link ”indicated by the MNTC project was led by the MNTC project. There are no specific information about the role of this co-executor (empty fields) on the web sheet dedicated to participation in the project of the NN Institute. The surname of the head of the peer project> is not mentioned anywhere. Head of the RFFI project No. NNN It is <another person>, and not the <manager of the reviewed project> <network link>. Comparing the content of the project report

RFFICES No. NNNN <Network link> (the head of which was indeed the head of the reviewed project>) with a list of articles of the authors of the application for Scopus , you can find two publications based on the results of this project of the RFFIF, on the basis of which it is conditionally recognized as successful. ”

You can’t seek-the level of our applicants, alas, is such that they often pump ... Unfortunately, even Google will not say what is “significant” here-this refers to the volume, the status of the fund, the significance of the results (about which there is no information) or? It would seem much more important to reasonably determine how many projects were, the leadership of which was not successful. Or do they find out with subtraction?

With the assessment of the real contribution to education, the situation is even worse. The options for answers with hints in paragraph 1.4 of the profiles do not take into account the specifics of the conjugation of scientific and educational work:

• Actively participates in educational activities (leads several graduate students, develops and reads new educational courses in Russian and foreign universities),
• participates in educational activities (leads one or two graduate students and reads a new educational course in Russian and foreign universities),
• leads several graduate students or reads a new educational course,
• Participates in educational activities to a small extent, or there is no sufficient information for evaluation.

The first wording is actually satisfied only by imitators-administrators, often attributed to several universities and departments at once and carrying out a “nominal” guide to graduate students. A scientific worker usually cannot pull more than one course, all the more new. And why, by the way, is it only about new courses? Traditional fundamental courses and special courses performed by existing scientists are no less important. And the key function of the management of the thesis, the laborious conduct of seminars and workshops fall into the last point along with the “lack of information” (and, possibly, are evaluated by zero score). If it is important for the fund to evaluate the contribution to education, is it not easier to immediately ask to indicate open network resources? Contrary to the widespread Russian practice, I believe that in modern education the absence of such resources simply immediately means a negative assessment (although their presence does not guarantee positive at all).

At the output we have two extreme cases: an unfair underestimation of the applicants' assessment who could provide the necessary information if there are relevant requirements in the form of an application, or an unfair overestimation of the evaluation by experts who did not waste time for verification and guided simply by the number of these projects or readable courses.

But we make rockets

I will not spend a newspaper area for a detailed analysis of the sections “Scientific validity of the project” and “The significance of the results”. There are problems of varying severity. The most mediocre, according to my observations, the applicants set out the “current state of research on the subject of the project”, but they very vigorously fill out the anecdotal point of the application “The Main World Scientific Competitors” ... IBM, General Motors and Basf are simply trembling from the number of Russian competitors, you can further not frighten them, and these points should be merged and reformulated so that the current state of affairs is reflected with references Key work and the expert would not evaluate the chatter, but specifics. This would help minimize stress when moving to paragraph 3.1:

The planned project results:

• have high significance for world science,
• have high significance for Russian science, significance for world science is limited,
• have a limited importance for Russian science,
• will not be in demand, or information is not enough to evaluate.

The options for answers are clearly hinting at the second -rate of Russian science, or maybe they are also written in the calculation of supporting special stamps. If we are talking about the results important for the region, then this is not a question about Russian science, but about the regional specifics of the object of research. It is possible to classify significance by the scale of the result, by its possible influence on further development, but certainly not by a national basis. Somehow expressing these simple considerations in the commentary (up to 1 page, which, apparently, no one reads), the expert takes place on the item

3.2. The possibility of practical use of the planned results of the project in the economy and the social sphere.

This cannot be taken into account with a comparative assessment of projects! - Since in a large part of the fundamental projects, no practical use in the near future cannot and should not be. The question itself provokes unfounded statements. At the end of the list of answers (apparently, as a negative assessment):

• The demand for the Russian economy or social sphere is not obvious.

But after all, the same formulation is strictly applicable to the development of a very high level, which in Russia cannot be in demand due to the low level of technological development. Not supporting projects, the results of which the Russian technological standard outgrew is the most hopeless impasse. There are no answers in the questionnaire that allow you to designate and positively evaluate this common situation.

I do not comment in detail 3.3. Obligations on the quantity and quality of publications are absurdity that deeply entered the documents of the fund. The shaft plan can be fulfilled by many groups, and with a high probability - to the detriment of quality. It would be much more useful to ask the authors for a sample thematic plan of publications, which can really be the object of expert assessment - otherwise we evaluate the furry, not qualifications. Gross indicators are proposed to evaluate in section 3.4 of the obligations to attract young researchers to work on the project, although the answer follows simply from the questionnaire in the application, and clerks may well get it. And no response options on the merits - that is, about the functions of youth in the project. Are there any good tasks for them, a reasonable work plan, is the management of their work thought out, or are they “inscribed” into the project and will be involved in laboratory operations at best? - Considerations on this subject again fall into the comment ...

The expert questionnaire RIF is suitable for cutting off completely illiterate projects. However, it categorically does not allow to distinguish a strong modern project not only from medium, but even from “lower than average” in level. So there is a hole through which the usual “as always” crawls without tension.

How to patch a hole

I doubt what will work, but I have to try. All the same, the RNF will not be closed.

First of all, to preserve at least some reputation of the fund, it is necessary to publish not only the annotations and expected results of all supported projects ( it is good that this was finally done, although much later than the announcement of the results of the competition), but also lists of performers. Perhaps this will increase the confidence that in some cases the work can really be done, despite the incompetence of the leader. We will convince us that the project is compiled by qualified people who are still behind the scenes. Unfortunately, even selective viewing of annotations shows that not all “high -ranking” projects are compiled in this way.

At the same time, it is urgent to adjust the expert questionnaire and provide it with points, firmly formulating the principle of using these points when making a decision. And immediately replace the classifier.

It is also necessary to understand who experts, it is best to simply publish their full list indicating the codes. In the letter that I received in February, it was written “On the recommendation of the expert council of the Russian Scientific Fund (hereinafter - the Fund), we invite you to participate in the examination of projects ...” Probably, the Expert Council sees a very limited circle of specialists. After all, the whole of May RNF shouted that there were not enough experts, although a huge number of authoritative and highly qualified scientists were not awarded invitations. The principle of selection, of course, should be advisory and/or based on an expert history, and since it has not worked, it means that the recommenders are incorrectly selected. And this is not a reason to announce how it is done now, the “call of experts-volunteers” with the bar according to the number of articles- the call must be stopped, otherwise it will be worse.

Then it is necessary to adjust the terms of the examination (with the number of projects proposed now for one expert for two weeks - it is pointlessly short). For applications for large projects , feedback with the authors and a two -stage examination are required, that is, the terms of competitions should be even more.

I really hope that colleagues who conducted the examination for the RNF will also formulate their impressions and inform both the fund and each other. When replicating the above problems in the following RNF competitions, the Russian grant system is doomed to imitate the examination, and we have all forced to contribute to the movement in this direction. This is our common fault, and we do not need to console yourself with a saying about the first pancake - all subsequent pancakes will also be lumpy if we now continue to discuss the results of RNF contests on forums and in LiveJournal, and not where decisions are made.

1. Www.rscf.ru/fonddocs