IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ach/journl/y2019id739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problems and prospects for evaluating the effectiveness of scientific activity in the chemical-technological field

Author

Listed:
  • S. V. Pronichkin
  • I. B. Mamay
  • R. N. Bafoev

Abstract

In modern conditions, the nature of scientific activity in the chemical and technological field is changed radically. Therefore, it is particularly relevant to implement an effective scientific and technical policy in this area in order to reduce the level of risk of the negative impact of hazardous chemical factors on the population and the environment. For a deeper understanding of the problems associated with the evolution of research and development in the chemical-technological field, the development of the issues of determining the effectiveness of scientific activity was applied in relation to the assessment of basic and applied research. The features of the development of science in the chemical-technological field in modern conditions are highlighted. A review of methods for determining the effectiveness of research and development is presented, and methodological problems are discussed. The specificity of determining the effectiveness of fundamental and applied scientific research in the chemical and technological field is highlighted. The problems of operational and long-term planning of research and development are investigated. The features of the expansion of research in the field of chemical technology are revealed. The problems of increasing the resource-intensiveness of research and development, staffing and optimization of training mechanisms for graduates of rare specialties in the chemical-technological field are investigated. Scientific and methodological approaches are proposed for determining the effectiveness of scientific activity in the chemical and technological field. Efficiency evaluation criteria are developed, which take into account the internal effects and externalities of scientific activities in the chemical and technological field. Efficiency is proposed to be evaluated according to three groups of criteria, internal efficiency, external efficiency and structural efficiency. Since the main part of the information can only be obtained through examination, the problems of obtaining and processing expert information are highlighted and ways of solving them are outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • S. V. Pronichkin & I. B. Mamay & R. N. Bafoev, 2019. "Problems and prospects for evaluating the effectiveness of scientific activity in the chemical-technological field," Russian Journal of Industrial Economics, MISIS, vol. 12(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:ach:journl:y:2019:id:739
    DOI: 10.17073/2072-1633-2019-2-167-177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ecoprom.misis.ru/jour/article/viewFile/739/654
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17073/2072-1633-2019-2-167-177?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L. E. Mindeli & S. I. Chernykh, 2016. "Funding of basic research in Russia: Modern realities and forecasts," Studies on Russian Economic Development, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 318-325, May.
    2. Bryan, Kevin A. & Lemus, Jorge, 2017. "The direction of innovation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 247-272.
    3. Zehavi, Amos & Breznitz, Dan, 2017. "Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 327-336.
    4. De Smedt, Peter & Borch, Kristian & Fuller, Ted, 2013. "Future scenarios to inspire innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 432-443.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bavly, Gilad & Heller, Yuval & Schreiber, Amnon, 2022. "Social welfare in search games with asymmetric information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    2. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti, 2022. "Patent portfolios and firms’ technological choices," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 97-120, October.
    3. Kuhmonen, Tuomas, 2017. "Exposing the attractors of evolving complex adaptive systems by utilising futures images: Milestones of the food sustainability journey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 214-225.
    4. de Bettignies, Jean-Etienne & Ries, John, 2023. "When less is more: Information and the financing of innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 346-369.
    5. Igor Letina & Armin Schmutzler & Regina Seibel, 2020. "Killer acquisitions and beyond: policy effects on innovation strategies," ECON - Working Papers 358, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jul 2023.
    6. Enrico Vanino & Stephen Roper & Bettina Becker, 2020. "Knowledge to Money: Assessing the Business Performance Effects of Publicly Funded R&D Grants," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(04), pages 20-24, January.
    7. Jeffrey L. Furman & Florenta Teodoridis, 2020. "Automation, Research Technology, and Researchers’ Trajectories: Evidence from Computer Science and Electrical Engineering," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 330-354, March.
    8. Chen, Yongmin, 2020. "Improving market performance in the digital economy," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    9. José Luis Moraga‐González & Evgenia Motchenkova & Saish Nevrekar, 2022. "Mergers and innovation portfolios," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(4), pages 641-677, December.
    10. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2021. "Innovation Systems and Income Inequality: In Search of Causal Mechanisms," Working Papers 56, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised Nov 2021.
    11. Stephen Brammer & Layla Branicki & Martina Linnenluecke & Tom Smith, 2019. "Grand challenges in management research: Attributes, achievements, and advancement," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 517-533, November.
    12. Daniel P. Gross & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2022. "Crisis Innovation Policy from World War II to COVID-19," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 135-181.
    13. Fabio M. Manenti & Luca Sandrini, 2023. "Patents with Simultaneous Innovations: The Patentability Requirements and the Direction of Innovation," Discussion Papers 2303, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Quantitative Social and Management Sciences, revised Aug 2023.
    14. Theo Papaioannou, 2020. "Reflections on the entrepreneurial state, innovation and social justice," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 199-220, August.
    15. Cagnin, Cristiano & Havas, Attila & Saritas, Ozcan, 2013. "Future-oriented technology analysis: Its potential to address disruptive transformations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 379-385.
    16. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    17. Choi, Jay Pil & Jeon, Doh-Shin, 2020. "Platform Design Biases in Two-Sided Markets," TSE Working Papers 20-1143, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    18. Haiwei Jiang & Shiyuan Pan & Xiaomeng Ren, 2020. "Does Administrative Approval Impede Low-Quality Innovation? Evidence from Chinese Manufacturing Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, March.
    19. Fulvio Castellacci, 2021. "Innovation and social welfare: A new research agenda," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20210705, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    20. Minkkinen, Matti & Auffermann, Burkhard & Ahokas, Ira, 2019. "Six foresight frames: Classifying policy foresight processes in foresight systems according to perceived unpredictability and pursued change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ach:journl:y:2019:id:739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Главный контакт редакции (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://misis.ru .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.