Партнерка на США и Канаду по недвижимости, выплаты в крипто
- 30% recurring commission
- Выплаты в USDT
- Вывод каждую неделю
- Комиссия до 5 лет за каждого referral
4.1 Scientific and medical expertise procedure of scientific and technical programs and budget applications projects
Planning STP, i. e. projects of scientific and technical programs, must estimate on three criteria:
1. Scientific quality (estimates on following indicators – level of scientific novelty, quality of formed question / research problem, construction quality of project STP).
Level of scientific novelty (k1.1) is identified by formation novelty level and scientific validity of research problem, researches absent in stated direction early and novelty degree of supposed way of research problem decision.
Quality of formed question / research problem (k1.2) is estimated by quality of presented research conception, degree of name and purpose fullness open scientific novelty and planning research actuality.
Quality of project construction STP (k1.3) is estimated by presence and degree of full openness of following key project sections: actuality, purpose and tasks of research, materials and methods of research, research design, scientific novelty and practical significance, expected final results, presence of backlog, organizational and legal provision, including personnel and material and technical provision, criteria (indicators) of programs execution, plan of project realization, charges calculation.
2. Significance for science and practice (estimates on following indicators – influence degree of expected result on science and practice, actuality of planning STP, degree estimation of expected effect from implementation).
Influence degree of expected result on science and practice (k2.1) is estimated by priority degree of deciding problems and tasks during project realization.
Actuality of planning STP (k2.2) is identified by raising conformity degree project problems to science and practice inquiries, i. e. priority rate for modern medical science and practice.
Level estimation of expected result from implementation (k2.3) is realized by way of character estimation (medical and prophylactic, social, economic, scientific) and level (on level of republic, some organizations or one health organization) of expected effect from project results implementation.
3. Objectivity (estimates on following indicators – results validity degree, qualification of basic executors, presence of backlog, period execution STP validity, financial validity STP).
Results validity degree (k3.1) present validity degree of research results: methodic level of conducting research and material and technical base of executor.
Qualification of basic executors (k3.2) is estimated as work competency degree of project executors on research theme.
Presence of backlog (k3.3) is estimated as level of executor readiness to tasks decision, which rises in project, estimating on results of their previous work.
Period execution validity STP (k3.4) identifies as execution possibility of stages and arrangements of project are showed by elaborators, to planning period of work execution.
Financial validity of STP (k3.5) is estimated as sum conformity of required by elaborator on project realization, which indicates on arrangement volume.
Every indicator estimates on 10 mark scale with degree gradation (see Application №1):
- «high» - 7-10 marks,
- «relatively high» - 4-6 marks,
- «insufficiency high» - 1-3 marks.
Selection of concrete mark within the scope of every estimation level realizes in accordance with character of project conformity to used criteria (Table 1).
Mark level Mark selection principle | insufficiency high | relatively high | high |
Mark selection principle realizes with conditional access (expert has apprehension, but to the selection of lower estimation objectively it will not show project conformity of this estimation) | 1 | 4 | 7 |
Mark selection principle objectively shows project conformity to concrete criterion | 2 | 5 | 8 |
Mark selection principle doesn’t give rise to doubt | 3 | 6 | 9-10 |
Table 1 – Mark selection principle inside every estimation level
Basic stages of scientific and medical expertise:
Estimation of planning STP on first stage must be realized by Academic Councils of organizations-executors. Every project STP on rate of organizations-developers must be estimated by some independent experts without concordances of their opinions. As experts must be well-known specialists – practitioners and researches, competence in project sphere, which is presented.
After receiving of positive conclusion of Academic council about appearance of planning STP directs to the authorized body – MH RK, which uses work body for organization of independent expertise conduction.
Work body get involve in competence project expertise STP in this sphere of specialists from number of independent experts – for consideration of every project is formed by expert commission from 3 experts.
Every expert of expert commission makes out marks for every of considering STP. Thereafter data is summed on every criterion and averaged, that permits to level the subjectivism of separate experts on these or other criteria.
Summary mark makes out on every project КƩk (maximally possible mark which project can get 110) and percentage (К%), which project is gained from maximally possible mark.
К% = ((k1.1 + k1.2 + k1.3 + k2.1 + k2.2 + k2.3 + k3.1 + k3.2 + k3.3 + k3.4 + k3.5) × 100) / 110
Besides, expert commission tells concrete comments and proposals on considering project STP. In addition especial attention must be given to scientific stylistics of exposition and full openness of separate project elements, project conformity to stated rules and structure of project writing STP.
Key aspects at project estimation are quality of formed research problems / question and scientific hypothesis, full openness and validity of research design, selection conformity to research tasks, and observance of ethical regulations and present standards of proper practice (GLP, GCP, GCLP, QPBR and others), presence of exact arrangements plan on project realization and others.
According to final of scientific and medical project expertise STP accepts one of following decisions:
- Project deserves all-about support (this decision can be accepted if project got not less 80% from maximum possible number of marks and has not principal notifications);
- Project deserves the support (this decision can be accepted if project got not less 60% from maximum possible number of marks and/or has notifications, is not supplicatory scientific and practical project evaluation in whole) ;
- Project can be supported at condition of notifications completion (this decision can be accepted if project got not less 40% from maximum possible number of marks and/or has remarks, concerning quality of project working out, it scientific and practical evaluation, in addition notifications can be removed during project completion);
- Project doesn’t deserve the support (this decision can be accepted if project got less 40% from maximum possible number of marks and/or has notifications about quality of project drawing up, it scientific and practical value, in addition objectively remarks removal) within th presented project framework is impossible and requires the revision of all conception).
Presence or absence of circumstances, which complicate an objective expertise, are taken into consideration in the process of expertise conduction. It can be connected with “conflict of interests”.
The fact of “conflict of interests” can be caused by divergence of scientific expert interests and project content; expert stay in past and present time in partnership, financial, relative relations with chief of executor of project; relation presence of scientific management with manager (or with one of basic project executors).
Expert estimation is given on base of scientific research content project analysis and scientific author potential (or author collective).
Scientific and medical expertise results draw in form of conclusion (Application №2) and presented in supervising department of authorized body – Department of science and human resources MH RK.
The project STP can be admitted to further consideration and confirmation in authorized body, in point of which the expert commission delivered judgment about support, as well as finalizing project with account of all remarks by experts.
4.2 Scientific and medical expertise procedure of scientific and technical programs and budget applications projects
Completed STP, i. e. intermediate and final reports on scientific and technical programs, must be estimated on three criteria:
1. Scientific quality (estimates on following indicators – level of scientific novelty, scientific level of received results, and quality of report drawing up STP).
Level of scientific novelty (k1.1) is identified by novelty degree of presented decision way of research problem.
Scientific level of received results (k1.2) is identified by fullness decision degree of stated problem/question.
Quality of project construction STP (k1.3) is estimated by presence and degree of full openness of following key project sections (introduction, materials and methods, research results and their discussion, conclusion and others), identified by real rules and State standards in result presentation sphere of scientific researches.
2. Significance for science and practice (estimates on following indicators – scientific significance degree, significance for practice, implementation degree and volumes).
Degree of scientific significance (k2.1) is estimated by rate and priority of deciding problem and tasks for medical science during realization STP.
Significance for practice (k2.2) is identified by conformity degree of receiving results to modern practical health inquiries.
Implementation degree and volumes (k2.3) is realize by way of character estimation (medical and prophylactic, social, economic, scientific) and degree (on degree of republic, some organizations or one health organization) received or/and supposed effect from research results implementation.
3. Objectivity (estimates on following indicators – validity level of results, plan conformity STP).
Results validity degree (k3.1) present validity degree of research results: conclusions, summary and recommendations.
Plan conformity STP (k3.2) estimates as degree of required project tasks during program realization and it separate stages.
Implementation of received results (k3.3) is estimated by transfer level of received knowledge and technologies in practical health and medical science.
Every indicator estimates on 10 mark scale with degree gradation (see Application №3):
- «high» - 7-10 marks,
- «relatively high» - 4-6 marks,
- «insufficiency high» - 1-3 marks.
Selection of concrete mark within the scope of every estimation level realizes in accordance with character of project conformity to used criteria (Table 1).
Basic stages of scientific and medical expertise:
Estimation of planning STP on first stage must be realized by Academic Councils of organizations-executors. Every project STP on rate of organizations-developers must be estimated by some independent experts without concordances of their opinions. As experts must be well-known specialists – practitioners and researches, competence in project sphere, which is presented.
After receiving of positive conclusion of Academic council on place of work every execution every completed STP directs to the authorized body – MH RK, which uses work body for organization of independent expertise conduction.
Work body attracts to reports STP expertise in this sphere of specialists from number of independent experts – for consideration of every project is formed by expert commission from 3 experts.
Members of expert commission makes out marks for every of considering reports STP. Thereafter data is summed on every criterion and averaged, that permits to level the subjectivism of separate experts on these or other criteria.
Summary mark makes out on every project КƩk (maximally possible mark which project can get 90) and percentage (К%), which project is gained from maximally possible mark.
К% = ((k1.1 + k1.2 + k1.3 + k2.1 + k2.2 + k2.3 + k3.1 + k3.2 + k3.3) × 100) / 110
Besides, expert commission tells concrete comments and proposals on considering project STP. In addition especial attention must be given to scientific stylistics of exposition and fullness of stated purposes and tasks to report conformity to stated rules and structure of writing project STP. Key aspects at project estimation are methodology and design of research, observance of ethical regulations and present standards of proper practice (GLP, GCP, GCLP, QPBR and others), achievement degree of final results, presentation and interpretation quality of research results and others.
Scientific and medical expertise results are drew in form of conclusion (Application №4) and presents in supervising department of authorized body – Department of science and human resources MH RK.
According to results of scientific and medical report expertise STP the expert commission accepts one of following decisions:
- Research results are deserved absolute approval (this decision can be accepted if report got not less 80% from maximum possible number of marks and has not principal comments);
- Research results deserves the approval (this decision can be accepted if report got not less 60% from maximum possible number of marks and/or has comments, is not supplicatory scientific and practical project evaluation of received results) ;
- Research results can be approved, on the assumption of stated commentary finalization (this decision can be accepted if report got not less 40% from maximum possible number of marks and/or has remarks, concerning quality of report working out, it scientific and practical value, in addition remarks can be removed during report finalization);
- Project doesn’t deserve the approval (this decision can be accepted if report got less 40% from maximum possible number of marks and/or has remarks about quality of report drawing up, it scientific and practical value, in addition objectively remarks removal within the presented report framework is impossible and requires the revision of all document).
Conclusion
Problem of methodological approaches elaboration to estimation of planning scientific and research projects and results of science organization activity on execution STP in health sphere is an actual and practically significant in context of acceptance the Codex of the Republic of Kazakhstan “About nation health and health system”, fastening regulations about scientific and medical expertise conduction, and new Law about science RK, which identified the mechanisms of expertise conduction in scientific researches system. Necessity in estimation system of scientific and research activity which connected with growth of state expenditures, search of more effective financial mechanisms on activity results, feedback instruments between results and resources, flexible resource redistribution between state science organizations in health system.
In this connection, especial need for domestic medical science bears elaboration and implementation of effective expertise mechanisms of scientific production. Independent scientific and medical expertise is based on exact and transparent estimation principles, is an important instruments in provision of scientific researches provision in health sphere. The suggested methodology of scientific and medical expertise can be used in health system at project and reports estimation of scientific and technical programs, which are financed under state demand framework and for account of external budget funds.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “About science” from 18th of February 2011
2. Organization rules and conduction of state scientific and medical expertise, confirmed by Decision of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan
3. The Swedish Research Council for Environment. BIC - Guidelines for project evaluation – Criteria, 2010 // http://www. formas. se/formas templates/Page 3973.aspx
4. FP7 Rules of participation Funding schemes Evaluation criteria and submission of proposals, 2009 // www. *****/russian/news/NISNEST/FP7.pdf
5. Methodic recommendations on formation of proposals for VII RP European Union // http://www. psc. nas. /worldwide/7p/ Documents/7P_recomendations. pdf
6. Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces Enhanced Review Criteria for Evaluation of Research Applications Received for Potential FY2010 Funding, 2010 // http://grants. nih. gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-025.html
7. Instruction on estimation of planning and completed scientific and research and experience and constructive elaborations is confirmed by Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus from 5th of December 2006, registration №
8. D. Levesky Innovational process and quality methods / D. Levesky, D. Wacker // Standards and quality. – 2008. –№1 – P. 80-85.
9. R. K. Kipshakbaev Method. recom.: Analysis of new medical technologies on base of evidentiary medicine and Pharmacoeconomic indicators, Almaty, -2009, - P.129.
10. R. Fletcher, S. Fletcher, E. Vagner. Clinical epidemiology. Basics of evidentiary medicine // Trans. from English– М. Media Sphere, 3 ed., Moscow, 2004. – P.352.
11. Work technology on application writing on scientific projects financing// science. *****/index. php/dok-publ/doc_download/200/Itemid,115/
12. A. B. Petrovskiy., I. P. Tihonov Fundamental researches, which orients on practical result: approaches to effectiveness estimation // Vestnik RASТ. 79, № 11. - P. 1006–1011.
13. Estimation of scientific projects effectiveness on many criteria / A. B. Petrovskiy, G. V. Royzenson, I. P. Tihonov, A. V. Balyshev // Theory and practice of systemic analysis. Works of I All-Russia scientific conference of young scientists. – T. P. - Rybinsk: RSATA named for P. A. Solovieva, 2010.- P. 60–69.
Application №1
Expert mark scale of planning themes STP
Name of criterion / indicator | Properties of criterion/indicator | Mark in points |
1. Scientific quality | Novelty degree (level) of proposed approaches and ways of problem solution | |
1.1. Level of scientific novelty | ||
High | Research problem is stated and scientifically based for the first time, research in stated direction before aren’t conducted, supposed way of research problem solution before aren’t used | 7—10 |
Relatively high | Original approaches are offered to research problem solution in project, which allow to modernize present ways of problem solution | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Proposed approaches to decision of research problem substantially aren’t differentiated from having and haven’t novelty and originality. | 1––3 |
Absence | Novelty and originality are absent to problem decision in proposed approaches | 0 |
1.2. Quality of expressed question/ research problems | Quality of presented research conception | |
High | Exact research conception. Name and purpose fully are opened the scientific novelty and actuality of planning research | 7—10 |
Relatively high | Research conception is revealed insufficiency extensively. Name and purpose are not in full measure to discover the scientific novelty and actuality of planning research | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Weak research conception. Name and purpose practically aren’t opened the scientific novelty and actuality of planning research | 1––3 |
Absence | Absence of research conception. Name and purpose aren’t opened the scientific novelty and actuality of planning research | 0 |
1.3. Quality of project STP compilation | Conformity of project structure and content by stationery requirements | |
High | Necessary parts are opened in the project: actuality, purpose, tasks, design of research and others. High scientific style of writing project. | 7—10 |
Relatively high | Necessary parts are in project, but they are opened in insufficiency volume. Having little remarks on scientific stylistics of writing project. | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Necessary parts contain in project, but they practically aren’t open. Having present remarks on scientific stylistics of writing project. | 1––3 |
Absence | Number of necessary parts is absent in project, having parts practically aren’t opened. Having significant stylistic and spelling mistakes | 0 |
2. Significance for science and practice | Potentially possible influence level of planning result on further development of medical science and health practice | |
2.1. Expected results influence degree of on science and practice | ||
High | Cardinal influence is rendered on science and practice further development, allowed to decide one of key problems under one of priority directions in health branch | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Important influence is rendered on science and practice further development, allowed essentially advance in solution of key problems under one of priority directions in health branch | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Defined influence is rendered on science and practice further development, allowed to base for solution of present problems in health branch | 1––3 |
Absence | It has not importance for science and practice | 0 |
2. 2. Actuality of planning STP | Conformity degree to inquiries of science and practice | |
High | Decision of stated problems in project is paramount and primary tasks for modern medical science and practice | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Solution of stated problems in project is important task for modern medical science and practice | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Solution of stated problems in project is one of local tasks for modern medical science and practice | 1––3 |
Not actually | Doesn’t conform to inquires and tasks of science and practice | 0 |
2.3. Expected effect level estimation from implementation | Expected effect from implementation: -medical and prophylactic, -social, -economic, -scientific | Presence at some kinds of effect in effect sum mustn’t increase 10 marks |
High | Wide implementation in republic with significant effect | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Implementation in some organizations with significant effect | 4—6 |
Insufficiency high | Implementation in one organization without effect identification | 1––3 |
Absence | Implementation doesn’t plan Doesn’t reveal | 0 |
3. Objectivity | Validity degree estimation of research results: methodic level of conducted research and material technical base of researcher | |
3.1. Results evidentiary degree | ||
High | Researched the modern methods, equipment, reagents | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Level of used methods, equipment, reagents is sufficiently high | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Level of used reagents, methods, equipment will not provide high results level | 1––3 |
Low | The used methods, equipment, reagents will not provide achievements to stated purpose | 0 |
3.2. Basic executors qualification | Qualification estimation degree of basic executors on research theme | |
High | Sufficient for objective execution – for 70-100% executors | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Sufficient for objective execution – for 40-69% executors | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Sufficient for objective execution – less than 39% executors | 1––3 |
Absence | Insufficient | 0 |
3.3. Backlog presence | Readiness level of executors to tasks decision, assigned in project, estimable on results of previous work | |
Significant backlog | Presence of positive results, which confirm the rightness of chosen direction, presence of publications on research theme | 7––10 |
Definite backlog | Presence of paramount material, which confirm the rightness of chosen direction, research methods are assimilated | 4––6 |
Minimal backlog | Research methods are assimilated | 1––3 |
Backlog absence | Backlog are absent on research theme | 0 |
3.4. Period execution validity of STP | Execution possibility of stages and arrangements on project realization, is showed by elaborator to planning periods | |
High | It conforms to planning periods | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Execution period is overstated from moment or understated on required data not more than 50% | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Execution period is overstated from moment or understated on required data more than 50% | 1––3 |
Absence | Execution period is not validated | 0 |
3.5.Financial validity of STP | Sum conformity are required by elaborator on project realization, to stated arrangements volume | |
High | Fully conforms to research volumes and tasks | 7––10 |
Relatively high | Required finance is overstated the cost of planning work volumes or insufficiency on potentially necessary sum not more than 50% | 4––6 |
Insufficiency high | Required finance is overstated the cost of planning work volumes or insufficiency on potentially necessary sum more than 50% | 1––3 |
Absence | Financial validity STP is absent | 0 |
Application №2
|
Из за большого объема этот материал размещен на нескольких страницах:
1 2 3 4 |
