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. Zehavi, Amos & Breznitz, Dan, 2017. "Distribution sensitive innovation policies: Conceptualization and empirical examples," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 327-336.
    2. 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.
    3. Bryan, Kevin A. & Lemus, Jorge, 2017. "The direction of innovation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 247-272.
    4. 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.
    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. Chen, Yongmin, 2020. "Improving market performance in the digital economy," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Stefano Comino & Fabio M. Manenti, 2022. "Patent portfolios and firms’ technological choices," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 97-120, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Mariya Dobryakova & Zoya Kotelnikova, 2015. "Social Embeddedness of Technology: Prospective Research Areas," Foresight and STI Governance (Foresight-Russia till No. 3/2015), National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 6-19.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kaustav Das & Nicolas Klein, 2020. "Do Stronger Patents Lead to Faster Innovation? The Effect of Duplicative Search," Discussion Papers in Economics 20/03, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester.
    12. Lee, Neil & Clarke, Stephen, 2019. "Do low-skilled workers gain from high-tech employment growth? High-technology multipliers, employment and wages in Britain," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    13. 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.
    14. Brunner, Philipp & Letina, Igor & Schmutzler, Armin, 2024. "Research joint ventures: The role of financial constraints," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    15. Bräuer, Richard, 2024. "Searching where Ideas Are Harder to Find – The Productivity Slowdown as a Result of Firms Hindering Disruptive Innovation," IWH Discussion Papers 22/2023, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH), revised 2024.
    16. Choi, Jay Pil & Jeon, Doh-Shin, 2020. "Platform Design Biases in Two-Sided Markets," TSE Working Papers 20-1143, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    17. Marshall, Fiona & Dolley, Jonathan, 2019. "Transformative innovation in peri-urban Asia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 983-992.
    18. Bouhalleb, Arafet & Tapinos, Efstathios, 2023. "The impact of scenario planning on entrepreneurial orientation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    19. 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.
    20. Jordan, Ramiro & Agi, Kamil & Arora, Sanjeev & Christodoulou, Christos G. & Schamiloglu, Edl & Koechner, Donna & Schuler, Andrew & Howe, Kerry & Bidram, Ali & Martinez-Ramon, Manel & Lehr, Jane, 2021. "“Peace engineering in practice: A case study at the University of New Mexico”," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 173(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.