• Home
  • Issues
  • 2019
  • No 2
  • Agent-oriented model of professional expertise and decision making on individual public significant initiatives support


TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 17 (no. 2),

Researches support by competitive funding mechanisms realized through scientific foundations is a common global practice. At the same time, decisions on support or refusal of a scientific project financing are made because of results of a multistage examination, which is a primary part of the competitive funding system and is conducted by the scientific community itself (peer review). It is important to take into account that the decisions of each expert in a situation of choice are influenced by his individual economic and psychological characteristics. Usually, these characteristics are neglected, but in our opinion, they should not be underestimated. This article presents an agentbased model of professional expertise and decision-making on financial support for research projects by scientific foundations, considering the economic and psychological characteristics of agents-experts and the reputational consequences of their decisions. The model takes into account such individual economic and psychological characteristics of scientists as “individualism – collectivism”, “satisfaction – dissatisfaction” and others. The quality of projects, the qualifications of scientists, their propensity for subjectivity and objectivity in the process of project evaluation, depending on the economic and psychological characteristics are also considered. Feedbacks in the model are implemented by changing the reputation of scientists, depending on the degree of objectivity of projects evaluations including by comparing the reputation of the researcher with the average reputation of his immediate surrounding. Conclusions about changes in the structure of researcher’s groups within the scientific community are made on the basis of changes in the reputation of scientists, depending on their belonging to the class of dependent (pursuing the interests of individual groups and communities) or the class of independent (conducting a fair evaluation of research projects). Recommendations for the further development of the model and for using it to predict the outcomes of local situations in autonomous socio-economic systems are formulated.
Citation: Kleiner, G. B., Rybachuk, M. A., and Ushakov, D. V. (2019). Agent-oriented model of professional expertise and decision making on individual public significant initiatives support. Terra Economicus, 17(2), 23–39. DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2019-172-23-39

Keywords: agent-based modeling; economic and psychological characteristics; competitive financing of research projects; peer review; individuality of an expert, reputation of an expert

  • Bakhtizin, A. R. (2015). Agent-oriented models: theory and practice. Analysis and Modeling of Economic and Social Processes: Mathematics. Computer. Education, 22(3), 76–83. (In Russian.)
  • Balyshev, A. V., & Konnov, V. I. (2010). Сomparative analysis of peer review regulation in the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Economics of Contemporary Russia, (3), 113–124. (In Russian.)
  • Banitz, T., Gras, A., & Ginovart, M. (2015). Individual-based modeling of soil organic matter in NetLogo: transparent, user-friendly, and open. Environmental modelling & software, 71, 39–45.
  • Belyavsky, O. V. (2018). Problems of legal regulation of grant support for basic research in the Russian Federation. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 13(4), 170–189. (In Russian.)
  • Borisov, V. V. (2011). Principles of competitive financing of initiative research projects. Science. Innovation. Education, (10), 9–24. (In Russian.)
  • Bukina, I. S., & Chernykh, S. I. (2016). State funds for supporting science: financial and organizational aspects of development. Innovations, (9), 15–20. (In Russian.)
  • Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2018 (2018). Congressional Research Service, January 25. (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44888.pdf –Access date: 30.04.2019).
  • Fedotov, A. V., & Vasetskaya, N. O. (2016). State support of scientific research in Russia – losses, achievements and problems. MIR (Modernizatcija. Innovatcii. Razvitie), 7(1), 19–28. DOI: 10.18184 / 2079-4665.2016. (In Russian.)
  • Fradkov, A. L. (2013). Glitter and poverty of formal criteria for scientific expertise, pp. 346–360 / In: Control of Large Systems: collection of works, 44. (In Russian.)
  • Ganguli, I. (2017). Saving Soviet Science: The Impact of Grants When Government R&D Funding Disappears. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(2), 165–201. DOI: 10.1257/app.20160180.
  • Gaudou, B., Lang, C., Marilleau, N., Savin, G., Coyrehourcq, S. R., & Nicod, J. M. (2017). Netlogo, An Open Simulation Environment. Agent-based Spatial Simulation with NetLogo, 2, 1–36.
  • Gropp, R. E., Glisson, S., Gallo, S., & Thompson, L. (2017). Peer review: A system under stress. BioScience, 67(5), 407–410. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bix034.
  • Ilina, I. E. (2015). Analysis of the activities of scientific foundations that provide support for basic research in Russia. Science. Innovation. Education, (18), 179–202. (In Russian.)
  • Ilina, I. E., & Zharova, E. N. (2017). Tools to support research and development of leading domestic and foreign scientific foundations. Integration of Education, 21(2), 164–183. DOI: 10.15507 / 1991-9468.087.021.201702.164–183. (In Russian.)
  • Kulivets, S. G., & Ushakov, D. V. (2016). Modeling the relationship between cognitive abilities and economic achievements. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 13(4), 673–685. (In Russian.)
  • Larin, S. N., & Zhilyakova, E. V. (2011). Ways to improve the mechanisms for independent expertise and financial support for initiative scientific research. National Interests: Priorities and Security, (35), 11–20. (In Russian.)
  • Lazar, M. G., & Streltsova, E. A. (2015). The grant system of financing of Russian science: the results of a sociological survey. Sociology of Science and Technology, 6(3), 38–49. (In Russian.)
  • Li, D., & Agha, L. (2015). Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science, 348(6233), 434–438. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0185.
  • Makarov, V. L., Bakhtizin, A. R., Sushko, E. D., Vasenin, V. A., Borisov, V. A., & Roganov, V. A. (2016). Agent-oriented models: world experience and technical capabilities of implementation on supercomputers. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 86(3), 252–252. (In Russian.)
  • Mindeli, L. E., Chernykh, S. I. (2016). Funding for basic research in Russia: modern realities and the formation of forecast estimates. Problems of Forecasting, 3 (156), 111–122.(In Russian.)
  • Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., Lewandowsky, S., Coker Morey, C., Newman, D. P., Schonbrodt, F., Vanpaemel, W., Wagenmakers, E., & Zwaan, R. (2016). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science, 3(1), 150547. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150547.
  • Oleynik, A. N. (2018). Scientific transactions in comparative perspective. Voprosy ekonomiki, (9), 52–69. (In Russian.)
  • Oleynik, A. N. (2019). Scientific transactions: networks and hierarchies in social sciences. Moscow: INFRA-M, 300 p. DOI: 10.12737/monography_5bc467f9c006b8.31611531. (In Russian.)
  • Polterovich, V. M. (2011). The mission of the economic journal and the institute of reviewing. Journal of the New Economic Association, (12), 194–197. (In Russian.)
  • Rennie, D. (2016). Let’s make peer review scientific. Nature News, 535(7610), 31–3. DOI: 10.1038/535031a. Science Indicators: 2018: statistical compilation (2018). National Research University Higher School of Economics. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publ., 320 p. (In Russian.)
  • Shestopal, A. V., & Konnov, V. I. (2014). Practical epistemology: the role of reviewing in the organization of scientific activity. Bulletin of MGIMO University, (1), 198–207. (In Russian.)
  • Thiele, J. C. (2014). R marries NetLogo: introduction to the RNetLogo package. Journal of Statistical Software, 58(2), 1–41.
  • Thiele, J. C., & Grimm, V. (2010). NetLogo meets R: Linking agent-based models with a toolbox for their analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25(8), 972–974.
  • Tsyganov, S. A., Rudtskaya, E. R., & Khrustalev, E. Yu. (2012). Improving competitive mechanisms for supporting and financing research, science, technology and innovation. National Interests: Priorities and Security, (11), 2–16. (In Russian.)
  • Wilensky, U., & Rand, W. (2015). An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England: The MIT Press, 504 p.
  • Yudin, B. G. (2007). What does competitive research funding give Russian science? Science. Innovation. Education, (3), 12–16. (In Russian.)
  • Zhuravlev, A. L., & Pozniakov, V. P. (2004). Economic psychology: theoretical problems and directions of empirical research. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 1(3), 46–64. (In Russian.)
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606