{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011558784676354029, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002642007926023778, 'mean_word_length': 5.458422174840085, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Practices and perspectives of research evaluation

The policy context for evaluation has been changing. There is growing recognition of the links between science, innovation, economic growth, health, etc. The funding for research has increased, but with some strings attached in the form of new models of governance of public research. Competition between universities and research laboratories has increased through research rankings, and there is increased emphasis on evaluation of institutions and their research output. National research funding has grown and average annual growth in real government R&D funding between 1995 and 2005 has varied between countries but has outpaced the inflation index by a few percent. However, in large countries which are big science producers, the growth has been somewhat constrained, which has caused quite a bit of angst in research institutions and the science system itself. Some of these constraints in research funding are linked to the changes in governance of public research and the shift from basic research funding to a process of governance of the science system. Under the old model, the government finances basic research through funding institutions. Universities and government laboratories have greater autonomy in setting scientific objectives and the scientific community is expected to take care of the funds, allocate them appropriately to different fields, and identify those projects that have scientific merit and the universities and government research laboratories where to conduct quality research. The main mission is to conduct quality research and educate students. This type of model is somewhat limited when it comes to evaluation and provides few incentives to measure the quality and the impact of research. In the new model, greater emphasis is placed on priority setting and some countries have formalized foresight and strategic planning processes. Greater attention is paid to the notion of return on investment because there have been significant changes in the way science is governed. Business and social groups play a greater role in government funding and the NIH is trying to find the gaps in its research portfolio, in collaboration with the scientific community, policy makers and the business community and also in consultation with advocacy and patient groups to help determine where the research dollar should be spent. There have been changes in the funding schemes to support research with an increase in competitive funding awards, especially in European countries and China, and an emphasis on collaborative activities targeting multidisciplinary research, and collaborative research bringing together investigators from universities and industries to move forward in a field oftentimes identified in the priority settings. There have been additional missions for research organizations. The idea that education and research are the main missions of universities and research organizations is still paramount but now a third mission