European Peer Review Guide - European Science Foundation

ence policy or strategic plans. In some programmes,
themes of research areas or topics may themselves
be identified by investigators using peer review and
through calls for proposals. Some councils use socalled
‘signposting’ for flagging priority areas in
their responsive mode funding streams. The implication
of a thematic versus non-thematic nature of
a call for proposals on the process of peer review is
not very significant but will be briefly discussed in
Chapter 4, §4.11.2 of this Guide.
2.2.3 Monodisciplinary versus
pluridisciplinary focus
For the purposes of fine-tuning and sharpening the
process of peer review according to the scope of the
proposals, it may be of interest to categorise proposals
into ‘monodisciplinary’ and ‘pluridisciplinary’
when appropriate. Research proposals increasingly
draw on knowledge and expertise outside of one
main discipline. In some programmes, there are no
specific modalities incorporated to deal with pluridisciplinary
proposals while other instruments
may be designed to specifically foster and manage
these kinds of research.
Currently in the specialised literature there are
ongoing discussions on the different types of pluridisciplinary
research 5. For the purposes of this
Guide the term ‘pluridisciplinary’ may be used in
the widest sense, i.e., research proposals that clearly
and genuinely require expertise from a broad range
of different disciplinary domains. However, for
completeness, a brief review of the types of pluridisciplinary
research as described in the literature is
provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.12 of this Guide 6,7.
In the same section relevant peer review specificities
and recommendations for the assessment of these
types of research proposals are also described.
and 20% of the organisations have only one such
dedicated instrument8. While 33.3% of the responding
organisations have reported that they regularly
see breakthrough proposals in their conventional
instruments, 50% of them have stated that they see
this type of proposal only rarely 9.
Explicit identification and handling of breakthrough
research is generally more complex than
mainstream research. In the context of research subjects,
priorities and goals, breakthrough research
is characterised not only by exceptional potential
for innovation, and creation of drastically new
knowledge, but also by consciously acknowledging
and taking the associated risks10. This can have
implications for the process of peer review as briefly
described in Chapter 4, Section 4.13 in this Guide.
11
European Peer Review Guide
2.2.4 Breakthrough research
Breakthrough research aims at radically changing
the understanding of an existing scientific concept,
and could lead to changes of paradigms or to the
creation of new paradigms or fields of science. The
level of risk associated with the success of these projects
is generally higher than mainstream research,
i.e., research activities that in general lead to incremental
gains with lower risks of failure.
The survey on peer review practices shows that
70% of the respondents do not have instruments
specifically designed for breakthrough proposals,
5. See Lattuca (2003) or Aboelela (2007).
6. See Frodeman, Thompson Klein and Mitcham (2010).
7. See UNESCO (1998), Transdisciplinarity ‘Stimulating synergies,
integrating knowledge’.
8. See European Science Foundation (2010b), ESF Survey Analysis
Report on Peer Review Practices, in particular §3.12.1, Question
67: “How many funding instruments does your organisation have
which are dedicated exclusively to breakthrough proposals?”
9. See European Science Foundation (2010b), ESF Survey Analysis
Report on Peer Review Practices, in particular §3.11.2, Question
69: “How often does your organisation see breakthrough proposals
within your conventional instruments, i.e. instruments not
specially dedicated to breakthrough proposals?”
10. See Häyrynen (2007), p. 11.