Key result
An editorial discussing the need to prioritize innovation in National Natural Science Foundation grant funding in China and to develop evidence-based policies for funding younger scientists.
Design
Editorial
This editorial emphasizes the importance of innovation and evidence-based policies in the peer review and funding process of the National Natural Science Foundation in China.
Placing innovation first for determining which research projects are funded during grant applications is proposed from China There are annual peer reviews of the National Natural Science Foundation (NSF) projects in China every year. These projects also aim to ‘cure, manage or treat all diseases’ by the end of the century through funding basic research and addressing gaps in biomedical technology.1 Nanchang University and some others have made breakthroughs in funding during recent years. Grant support is more and more important for scientists in careers because it links to academic promotions and appointments to senior positions. Therefore, policymakers need to develop and improve evidence-based policies and programs for better and reasonable funding and resources for the younger scientists.2 At present, China is building an innovative country. Innovation-driven development changes daily life. Innovation is also the key element to research projects or publication of manuscripts. As a user of the scientific network (www.sciencenet.cn), I found some comments of peer review on NSF projects, but I think that these peer reviews are too general. It is time to develop best practices for the future.3
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chunsong Hu (2018) reported an editorial. An editorial discussing the need to prioritize innovation in National Natural Science Foundation grant funding in China and to develop evidence-based policies for funding younger scientists.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: