FRANCE LATVIA 17th ANNIVERSARY OF THE PHC OSMOSE ... · Average budget per project (France + Latvia) : 2 275 € / year Number of new projects per year : around 5 From 2006-2016:

FRANCE – LATVIA 17th ANNIVERSARY OF THE PHC OSMOSE

Scientific impact of the program (2006-2016)

MESRI-DAEI / MEAE

2019

October 25th, 2019, Riga 1

http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr

GENERAL PRESENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME

2

Creation : 2002

The purpose of this programme is to develop excellence scientific and technological exchanges between the French and Latvian laboratories, by promoting new scientific collaborations.

Total budget (France + Latvia) : around 27 300 € / year >> including budget from the French part : 13 650 € / year >> including budget from the Latvian part : 13 650 € / year

Average budget per project (France + Latvia) : 2 275 € / year

Number of new projects per year : around 5

From 2006-2016: 52 applications submitted 29 projects funded (including 2016)

October 25th, 2019, Riga

DATA SOURCES

3

Campus France • Information about the PHC Osmose program applications • List of mobilities (from France to Latvia)

Survey (conducted by the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and

Innovation and the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs)

• Target : French Principal Investigators of selected projects between 2006 and 2016

• Survey duration : 7 weeks between November 2016 and January 2017

• 58% response ratio (14 respondents for 24 funded projects)


ANSWERS TO THE SURVEY

4

Average response rate to the survey : 58 % (14 answers)

Campus France & Survey

data


4 4

5

6

5

3

1 1

5

4

Number of funded projects Number of survey answers

2006-2016 Key Points

5 October 25th, 2019, Riga

BEFORE THE PHC OSMOSE PROJECT

6

Did you already collaborate with the Latvian partner in the past?

Survey data


67%

33% Yes

No

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS VS SELECTION RATE (COMPARISON BETWEEN 26 DIFFERENT BILATERAL PROGRAMMES)

7

Average selection rate for 2005-2017 : 56% vs 32% mean Average number of applications 2005-2017 : 9 vs 56 mean

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Ave

rage

an

nu

al n

um

be

r o

f ap

plic

atio

ns

Average annual selection rate

Moyenne

PHC OSMOSE

8

Average selection rate from 2006-2016: 56 %

Campus France data


7

4

9 9

11 12

4 4 5

6 5 5

57% 100% 56% 67% 45% 42%

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Number of applications Number of funded projects Selection rate

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS AND SELECTION RATE


Campus France data

Data from 2006-2016

0%

23%

2%

21%

23%

4%

4%

13%

6% 4%

Number of applications : 52 Number of funded projects : 29

0%

24%

3%

14%

28%

0%

7%

10%

7%

7%

SCIENTIFIC DOMAINS OF PROJECTS

FRENCH PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

10

Survey data


42%

29%

13%

6%

10% Université

CNRS

Ecole d'ingénieurs

ENS

Autres

AGE OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS (PI) (COMPARISON BETWEEN 26 DIFFERENT BILATERAL PROGRAMMES)

11

PIs under 40 years : 20% vs 23% mean PIs over 55 years : 20% vs 15% mean

60% of the PIs are between 40 and 55 years

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

% o

f P

Is u

nd

er

40

ye

ars

% of PIs over 55 years

Moyenne

PHC OSMOSE

12

Survey data

Current professional status


40%

13%

34%

0% 13%

FRENCH PIS (PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS) : STATUS

IMPLICATION OF WOMEN (FRANCE) (COMPARISON BETWEEN 26 DIFFERENT BILATERAL PROGRAMMES)

13

% of women PIs in the applications : 29% vs 25% mean % of women PIs in the selected projects : 31% vs 25% mean

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

% o

f w

om

en

PIs

in t

he

ap

plic

atio

ns

% of women PIs in financed projects

Moyenne

PHC OSMOSE

PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG RESEARCHERS

14

85 % of projects integrate PhD students

Survey data


38 % of projects integrate post-doctoral researchers

Number of PhD students Number of post-

doctoral researchers

0 15%

1 15%

2 38%

3 15%

4 and more 15%

0 62%

1 31%

2 0%

3 8%

IMPLICATION OF PhDs (COMPARISON BETWEEN 26 DIFFERENT BILATERAL PROGRAMMES)

15

% of projects implying PhDs and Post-doc : 73% vs 65% mean Average rate of scientific production per PhD : 0,48 vs 0,70 mean

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

0,80

1,00

1,20

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Ave

rage

rat

e o

f sc

ien

tifi

c p

rod

uct

ion

pe

r P

hD

or

po

std

oc

% of projects implying PhDs and postdocs

Moyenne

PHC OSMOSE

Mobility


France Latvia Latvia France

17

Campus France data


MOBILITY : GENDER DISTRIBUTION

MOBILITY FRANCE – LATVIA (COMPARISON BETWEEN 26 DIFFERENT BILATERAL PROGRAMMES)

18

% of french young researchers in outgoing mobilities : 34% vs 35% mean

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

% o

f re

sear

che

rs o

ver

35

ye

ars

in

ou

tgo

ing

mo

bili

tie

s

% of researchers under 35 years in outgoing mobilities

Moyenne

PHC OSMOSE


MOBILITY : STATUS


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60%% o

f re

sear

che

rs o

ver

35

ye

ars

in o

utg

oin

g m

ob

iliti

es

% of researchers under 35 years in outgoing mobilities

Moyenne

PHC OSMOSE

% of french young researchers in outgoing mobilities : 34% vs 35% mean % of latvian young researchers in incoming mobilities : 36%

under 35 years

36%

over 35 years 64%

MOBILITY : DURATION

20

Campus France data



Scientific production


SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT (1/2)


Number of funded projects : 29 Percentage of copublications

Survey data

Campus France data

50%

34%

8% 8% Physics

EngineeringSciences

Chemistry

Biology andHealth

SCIENTIFIC OUTPUT (2/2)

23 Survey

data

33% of funded projects led to one co-publication at least 100% of copublications include at least 1 PhD or PostDoc


Number of

funded

projects by

thematic area

Ratio of

funded

projects by

thematic area

Number

of co-

publicatio

ns

Ratio of co-

publications

by thematic

area

Ratio of funded

projects by thematic

area that led to one

co-publication at

least

Average

number of

co-

publications

per project

Mathematics 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%

Physics 5 33% 6 50% 40% 1,2

Marine / Earth / Planet

Sciences 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%

Chemistry 2 13% 1 8% 50% 0,5

Biology and Health 5 33% 1 8% 20% 0,2

Humanities 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%

Social Sciences 1 7% 0 0% 0% 0,0

Engineering Sciences 2 13% 4 33% 50% 2,0

Information

Technology 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%

Agronomy / Food

Science / Environment

/ Biodiversity

0 0% 0 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL 15 100% 12 100% 33% 0,8

What happens after a PHC Osmose project ?


CONTINUATION OF THE COLLABORATION (1/3) (COMPARISON BETWEEN 26 DIFFERENT BILATERAL PROGRAMMES)

26

Continuation of the collaboration : 77% vs 81% mean Continuation of the collaboration with other sources of subvention : 27% vs 33% mean

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Co

nti

nu

atio

n o

f th

e c

olla

bo

rati

on

Financed continuation of the collaboration

Moyenne PHC OSMOSE

CONTINUATION OF THE COLLABORATION (2/3)

27

Has the program Osmose led to the set-up of joint structures?

Survey data


Yes 8%

No 92%

1 CNRS / International Research Network (IRN ex GRDI)

CONTINUATION OF THE COLLABORATION (3/3)

28

Has the French-Latvian collaboration involved new partners?

Survey data


Yes 62%

No 38%

IMPACT ON YOUNG RESEARCHERS’ CAREER

29

% of young researchers whose career was impacted by the PHC program

Survey data

Type of impacts


Yes 62%

No 38%

67%

25%

8% Get a permanent ortemporary job

Get a post-doctoratecontract

Get a job in a privatecompany

GENERAL OPINION OF FRENCH PIS ON THE PROGRAMME

30

Survey data

82% of French principal investigators are satisfied


0%

18%

18%

27%

37%

Not satisfied at all

Not satisfied

Quite satisfied

Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

31

Preliminary conclusions suggest that the funding scheme has efficiently contributed to create (or to maintain) fruitful and long-term cooperation, despite the relatively low financial support, which is to be considered as “seed money”. % of co-publications that include at least 1 PhD or PostDoc Women PIS selection rate % of projects that integrate PhD students and post-doctoral researchers % of funded projects that led to one co-publication at least Average number of co-publications per project


PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

32

RECOMMENDATIONS Aim an average 30% success rate Promote scientific co-publications (67% of projects with no co-

publications ; average number of co-publications per project : 0,8) Promote co-publications by young researchers (average rate of co-

publications by young researcher is only 48%)


CONCLUSIONS

33

Preliminary conclusions suggest that the funding scheme is efficiently contributing to maintain a fruitful and long term cooperation, despite the relatively low financial support, which is to be considered as “seed money”.

Thank you for your attention


Contacts

34

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]


French national ministries (MESRI / MEAE) will provide a complete analysis of the survey (incl. scientific impact). Il will be sent to the recipients of the funding and participants in this symposium.

Documents

FRANCE LATVIA 17th ANNIVERSARY OF THE PHC OSMOSE ... · Average budget per project (France + Latvia) : 2 275 € / year Number of new projects per year : around 5 From 2006-2016: