子曰:“知之者不如好之者,好之者不如乐之者。”分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/sqdai 上海大学教授

博文

基金申请新议-20:取长补短 删繁就简 精选

已有 13232 次阅读 2013-2-8 09:16 |个人分类:科研方略|系统分类:观点评述|关键词:基金申请 NSFC RGC GRF

    我在以前的博文里说过,我国的国家自然科学基金委员会从设立之日起,就在不断借鉴发达国家的相关经验,努力与国际接轨,工作卓有成效,但仍有不少可改进之处。尤其是,在申请书的设计方面,有很大的改善余地,比较公认的意见是:与境外的同类申请书(proposal)相比,我们的申请书格式详尽无遗,但是失之繁琐。本文试图对香港RGCGRF (General Research Fund)申请书格式与NSFC申请书格式作一比较,概述它们的异同和优劣之处。前者简称为GRF1,后者简称为NSFC1(指的是面上项目)。

       考虑到多数朋友不熟悉香港GRF1申请书,在链接里里给出其申请书要目(未经翻译);申请过或正在申请NSFC面上项目的朋友们都了解其申请书格式,这里不再列出。下面对两种申请书格式做一个比较。

 

两种申请书的相同之处

      

         RGCNSFC都是分配科研资源的机构,它们有着相同的目的:设立符合社会进步和科技发展需要的项目,交给最合适的个人或群体来完成。因此,两者都希望从项目申请书中获取最必要的信息,由此决定取舍。这就决定了申请书的基本内容的雷同性。所谓最必要的信息就是:项目的立项背景(或即立项依据)和关键内容以及项目申请人的基本素质和工作基础。

        具体说来,两种表格的相同之处在于:

1)     GRF1Part I相当于NSFC1的简表+摘要;摘要的篇幅也相近;

2)     GRF1Part II中的12a)相当于NSFC1中的立项依据;

3)     GRF1Part II中的2b)相当于NSFC1中的研究内容和研究方案等各项;

4)     GRF1中的Part II中的89相当于NSFC1中的申请人及其合作者介绍和工作基础。

 

两种申请书的不同之处

   

    下面着重谈谈两种申请书的不同之处。

    我认为主要区别在于繁简程度的不同,特别是关于研究方案的表述方面。GRF12(b),(c)(d)这三个子项,用“研究计划和方法论”条目涵盖了NSFC1中研究内容、研究目标、拟解决的关键问题、研究方案、技术路线、特色与创新之处、可行性分析等多个子项。与前者相比,后者内容详尽,却显得繁琐,撰写起来不可避免地要出现重复。

    另一个重要区别在于经费预算方面,GRF1显得更加精细合理,NSFC1则显得粗疏而不规范。

    GRF1值得NSFC1借鉴之处在于:

1)    删繁就简,抓住要点,减少条条框框的束缚,给申请者以更大的自由发挥空间;科学研究是对未知的探索,有些问题不可能一下子说清楚;

2)          区分初次申请和(因申请失败而)再次申请这两类情况,要求再次申请者对评审意见做出回答,实际上也给遭遇不科学的评审的申请者提供了申辩的机会;

3)          给予申请者提供评审人选的机会;

4)          对需要申请人说明的问题,大量采用“选择填空”的形式,省却很多书写麻烦。

NSFC1值得GRF1借鉴之处在于:

1、          有关项目和申请人的信息较为详尽,便于评审人作判断;

2、          基金申请必须强调创新,因此,像NSFC1那样设立子项“特色与创新之处”极有必要;

3、          比较强调申请者的工作基础和项目可行性。

 

怎样写好NSFC申请书

 

    关于这一问题以前已谈过不少,今天只想说说已习惯于境外基金申请方式的朋友们如何来适应NSFC申请书的要求,这种申请书已沿用了20多年,要变动也不容易。我遇到长期在境外留学的年轻学者以及在港澳环境中成长起来的专家,他们现在有机会申请NSFC项目,但面对这种“详尽无遗”型的申请书格式,心里就发怵,不知如何应对。这里向他们提供一些对策:

(1)通过阅读中国国家自然科学基金委员会发布的项目申请指南或者进入基金委的门户网站,了解基金委对撰写基金申请书的基本要求;

(2)细细分析NSFC申请书的格式,弄清它与自己熟悉的proposal格式的异同,把原有的设想进行分解,“套入”NSFC申请书的“框框”中。例如,原来GSF1Part II中的12a)的内容放入“立项依据”栏目(连同参考文献);把2b)的研究计划和方法论加以剖解,放入“研究内容”、“研究目标”、“拟解决的关键问题”、“研究方案”、“技术路线”等“框框”。写内容不详述方法;写目标时提炼出一二百字;写研究方案时详述methodology;写技术路线时给一个研究过程的flowchart。对于境外申请书中没有的子项(如“特色与创新之处”、“可行性分析”等),则要仔细斟酌、用心提炼;

(3)目前人员流动频繁,可随时请教有申请NSFC经验的人士,甚至可以询问有中国大陆背景的博士后、博士生,若他们来自名校名专业,大多接触过NSFC申请书。

    我认为,基金申请能否成功取决于申请人的总体实力和对项目选题的把握,撰写申请书仅在有同等实力竞争的条件下才是重要的。

 

201328日写于香港城市大学

 

 

[链接] 香港RGC (Research Grants Council)的基金申请书(GRF1)格式

Application Form (GRF1)

 

Part I SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

1. Particulars of the project

(a)

    (i) Name and academic affiliation of principal investigator

    (ii) Is the PI a new appointee within 2 years of full-time paid appointment to his/her first substantive position as an academic staff in a university at the time of submission of the proposal?  

    (iii) Title of project

    (iv) Nature of application

             New?   Re-submission?   Continuation?

(b)

    (i) Primary field

         Secondary field

    (ii) A maximum of five keywords to characterize the work of your proposal

    (iii) Project duration

    (iv) Total cost of the project 

(c) Abstract of research comprehensive to a non-specialist (a maximum of one A-4 page in standard RGC Format for attaching PDF documents or a maximum of 400 words for direct input in the text box) 

(d) Special funding template

 

PART II DETAILS OF THE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

RESEARCH DETAILS

1.  Impact and objectives

     (a maximum of 800 words for the long-term impact and project objectives)

(a)Long-term impact

(b)Objectives

2.  Background of research, research plan and methodology

     (A maximum of 7 A-4 pages in total in standard RGC Format for items (a) and (b))

(a) Background of research

     -Work done by others

     -Work done by PI

(b) Research plan and methodology

(c) A maximum of two non-text pages of attached diagrams, charts, photos and others, if any

(d)Reference (a maximum of three pages for references is allowed for listing the publications cited in Sections 1-2. All references should be provided in full and include all authors.)

PROJECT FUNDING

3.  Cost and justification

(a) Estimated cost and resource implications

    (i) Staff

    (ii) Relief teacher

    (iii) Equipment

    (iv) High-performance computing services

    (v) General expenses

    (vi) Research experience for undergraduate student

    (vii) Conference expenses

    (viii) Total cost of the project

    (ix) Institutional funding for provision of research experience for undergraduate  student

    (x) Other research funds secured from other sources

    (xi) Amount requested

(b) Declaration on the equipment procurement

(c) Declaration on high-performance computing services

(d) Declaration on the research-related software license/dataset

4.  Existing facilities and major equipment available for this research project

5.  Funds secured or to be secured

6.  Re-submission but not supported previously

(a) UGC or RGC project?

(b) Main concerns/suggestions of the reviewers

(c) Response to reviewers

7.  Submission of a new proposal or proposal similar or related to on-going and completed projects, and proposal pending funding approval

8.  Particulars of PI and Co-Is

(a) Investigator(s) information: Names and academic affiliation(s) of applicant(s)  

(b) Curriculum vitae (CV) of applicants

[For the PI and each Co-I, please attach one A-4 Page CV (with a maximum of 400 words) per person in the following format.]

    i) Name

    ii) Academic qualification

    iii) Previous academic positions (with dates)

    iv) Present academic position

    v) Previous relevant reseach work

    vi) Publication records

        Section A-Five most representative publications in recent five years

        Section B- Five representative publications beyond the recent five- year period with the latest publications entered first

    vii) Others (please specify)

GRANT RECORD OF INVESTIGATORS

9.  Details of research projects

(i) Details of on-going research projects funded from all (UGC/RGC and non-UGC/RGC sources under taken by the PI or Co-I/Co-PI capacity)

(ii) Details of on-going research projects funded from all (UGC/RGC and non-UGC/RGC sources under taken by each in a PI/PC capacity)

ANCILIARY  INFORMATION

10.  Research ethics/safety approval

11.  Proposed reviewers

(a) List of proposed reviewers

(b) Declaration of any past and present relationship between the investigator(s), i.e., PI and CoIs, and the nominated reviewers

(c) Indicate the name of PI/CoIs and the nature of the relationship declared in (b)

12.  Release of completion report and data archive possibilities and public access of publications resulting from research funded by the RGC

13.  Letters of collaboration and supporting documents



基金申请
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-330732-660478.html

上一篇:古园见闻——重访钱伟长-孔祥瑛墓地记
下一篇:观察与思考(11)经济杠杆 科学计算 民意调查

14 朱鸿鹄 李刚 董焱章 梅志平 牛丕业 龙涛 覃开蓉 岳金星 jiangleidi hao dachong99 clp286 biofans ahsys

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (7 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2017-6-24 04:52

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007-2017 中国科学报社