How to Write (Science) Better. Simplified English Principles in a Skill-Oriented ESP Course

Teaching writing to doctoral students or academics at a technical university is a challenging task. Because they need to publish their research findings in English to pursue academic careers, they are usually highly motivated and expect a lot of the class. Their language competences, however, very often lack enough proficiency and may contribute to manuscript rejection. The paper focuses on language issues based on the rules of controlled natural languages (CNLs) and guidelines of Plain English. It shows how employing these issues improves grammatical quality and readability of science-oriented written texts. The paper describes four principles: removing nominalisation and using the so-called strong verbs to make the message simpler and more direct; combining nouns in strings to express complex ideas economically; applying grammatical consistency for coordinate elements in sentences to make them less chaotic; and reducing wordiness to obtain a more precise and comprehensible piece of writing. Sample phrases and sentences from authentic student writing as well as their improved versions are provided to each of the guidelines so that a reader has a deeper insight into how the principles work in a specialist context. Because problems with, for example, research papers, grant proposals or reports are common to various disciplines and at various levels, the Author of the paper draws conclusions that these principles should be implemented not only in a technical but also legal, medical and business writing course offered by English teachers to both young researchers and experienced scientists.

Why gender is relevant to materials science and engineering

For historical reasons science today has substantially more evidence for males and men than for females and women, which means that quality of research and innovation outcomes may often be worse for women than for men. I explore how the gender dimension—a term used to mean effects of biological (sex) and/or socio-cultural (gender) characteristics—fits into new materials research and engineering and especially in nano-materials applications. Horizon Europe expects that grant proposals should include explanation if gender dimension is relevant to the project’s objectives. This paper shows that often the answer should be yes it is.

Ethics issues identified by applicants and ethics experts in Horizon 2020 grant proposals

Background: We assessed the ethics review of proposals selected for funding under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) and the European Research Council (ERC) in Horizon 2020, EU’s framework programme for research and innovation, 2014-2020. Methods: We analysed anonymized datasets for 3,054 MSCA individual fellowships (IF), 417 MSCA Innovative Training Networks (ITN), and 1,465 ERC main-listed proposals with ethics conditional clearance, over four years (2016 to 2019). The datasets included the information on ethics issues identified by applicants in their proposal and ethics issues and requirements identified by ethics experts during the ethics review. Results: 42% of proposals received ethical clearance. For proposals with conditional ethics clearance (n=3546), most of the identified ethics issues by both applicants and ethics experts were in the ethics categories related to humans; protection of personal data; environment, health and safety; and non-EU countries. Ethics experts identified twice as many ethics issues compared to applicants across funding schemes, years, and from high- and low-research performing countries. ERC grants had the highest number of ethics requirements per proposal (median (Md)=8, interquartile range (IQR=4-14), compared to ITN (Md=6, IQR=3-13) and IF grants (Md=3, IQR=2-6). The majority of requirements had to be fulfilled after grant agreement: 99.4% for IF, 99.5% for ITN, and 26.0% for ERC. For 9% of the proposals, the requirements included the appointment of an independent ethics advisor and 1% of the proposals had to appoint an ethics advisory board. Conclusions: Many applicants for highly competitive H2020 funding schemes lack awareness of ethics issues raised by their proposed research. There is a need for better training of researchers at all career stages about ethics issues in research, more support to researchers from research organizations to follow the funding agencies requirements, as well as further development and harmonization of the ethics appraisal process during grant assessment.

Bidding for Research Funds. Inter-Fields Differences and Predictors of the Evaluation Scores: Insights from a Romanian National Competition for Postdoctoral Grants

This study sought to address an important gap in the existent knowledge about the development of the Romanian research system by looking at a very specific population of young scholars who participated in the national competition for postdoctoral grants (2016) which included over 900 participants. The paper is structured by two main research objectives. Firstly, the analysis if focused on differences between scientific fields by looking at research entities which host young scholars’ grant proposals, gender balance, young scholars’ academic performance measured through a standardized indicator (Google Scholar H index), share of people trained abroad, and information about the evaluation process. Secondly, a linear regression model is built for the relationship between research proposal’s evaluation score and a series of individuals’ characteristics and structural factors associated to entities which host young scholars’ research proposals. An original database derived from individuals’ CVs allows us to test a series of hypothesis and to reveal significant predictors for grant application’s evaluation score. For instance, individuals’ evaluation score is positively influenced by scholars’ higher Google Scholar H Index, short-term and long-term experiences of formal education or training abroad. At the same time, younger participants and women researchers have statistically significant higher scores for their proposals.

Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review

The purpose of grant peer review is to identify the most excellent and promising research projects. However, sociologists of science and STS scholars have shown that peer review tends to promote solid low-risk projects at the expense of more original and innovative projects that often come with higher risk. It has also been shown that the review process is affected by significant measures of chance. Against this background, the aim of this study is to theorize the notions of academic judgment and agonistic chance and to present and analyze situations in which expert reviewers are faced with the challenge of trying to decide which grant proposals to select when there is strong disagreement. The empirical analysis is based on ethnographic observations of ten panel groups at the Swedish Research Council in the areas of natural and engineering sciences. By focusing on disagreement, the study provides a more in-depth understanding of how agonistic chance creeps into the peer-review process and becomes part of the consensus that is created.