snsf info w w w. s n s f . c h
Editorial Fostering trust The SNSF's core task is to promote scientific excellence. Consequently, it expects its own performance to be of a high standGabriele Gendotti ard. Researchers must President of the Foundation Council have confidence in of the SNSF Switzerland's leading research funding organisation; they should be able to take it for granted that their applications, which reflect their scientific achievements, are evaluated independently, fairly and adequately. The Executive Committee of the Foundation Council is convinced that the National Research Council works in precisely this manner. However, as a supervisory body, it must from time to time gain a critical view of this work from the outside. An experienced US research team has recently provided this outside view and confirmed our trust: the SNSF is doing its job well! And, importantly, its decisions are regarded as impartial and fair. But here's the catch: for the applicants, they are often not sufficiently transparent and understandable. Trust is based to a high degree on clear and well-aimed communication. According to the evaluation report, this is the area in which the SNSF needs to improve. The statement issued by the SNSF reflects its commitment to doing just this.
N° 19 > June 2013
I n f o r m a t i o n f o r r e s e a r c h e r s f r o m t h e S w i s s N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e Fo u n d a t i o n
Evaluation procedure of the SNSF: room for improvement despite good marks In 2012, a team of US researchers took a close look at the quality and transparency of the evaluation procedure at the SNSF. In a recent statement, the SNSF has confirmed that it will address almost all of the recommendations of the evaluation report. Katrin Milzow, Strategic Planning and Controlling
The evaluation project conducted in 2012 aimed to show to what extent the evaluation procedure of the SNSF is fair and impartial as well as understandable and transparent. The project also analysed to what degree the SNSF achieves its goal of funding excellent and original research in all disciplines and promoting young scientists.
Critical areas identified Based on in-depth interviews and after analysing the relevant documents and data, the research team of Chris Coryn from Western Michigan University came to the conclusion that the SNSF achieves its objectives to a very large degree. Despite this gratifying result, the evaluation has also brought to light some critical areas. The research team has framed eight recommendations in its report with regard to external reviewing, the work processes of the National Research Council and communication with researchers.
Steps by the SNSF After examining the recommendations in depth, the SNSF has decided to pursue all of them with one exception – financial compensation for external reviewers. Appropriate measures can already be planned and implemented in some areas, such as improved communication with and non-monetary incentives for external reviewers; more support for the Research
The SNSF evaluates research projects ... but this time round it is itself the object of study. The question being asked is: does the evaluation procedure of the SNSF achieve its objectives?
Council by the Administrative Offices with regard to obtaining external reviews; better communication with the researchers and clearer explanation of evaluation criteria and processes in the context of the upcoming new website. Other fundamental steps are being evaluated by the SNSF in response to the recommendations (e.g. the introduction of evaluation reports, adjustments to the election procedure for members of the Research Council). Detailed information is given in the SNSF statement, which can be obtained from the SNSF (core@snf.ch).
Page 2 > NCCR projects: various stimuli • Page 2 > In Focus: excellence in Switzerland and Europe Page 5 > Annual report 2012: facts and worries • Page 5 > For young scientists: actions follow words