bioRxivScientific Communication & EducationPreprint
SciCV, the Swiss National Science Foundation's new CV format
M. Strinzel, W. Kaltenbrunner, I. van der Weijden, M. von Arx, M. Hill
Abstract
BackgroundThe Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) tested a new CV format called SciCV to encourage fair, DORA-compliant assessment of grant applicants. It was developed in close collaboration with the academic evaluation community and international experts, introduced through detailed change management and finally tested in its utility by an independent research team of the Center for Science and Technology Studies Leiden (CWTS). MethodsWe present the development of the SciCV pilot and its evaluation by the CWTS research group. The analysis comprised both quantitative and qualitative methods, with (i) surveys and semi-structured interviews with applicants and reviewers, (ii) text analysis of the narrative elements of SciCV, and (iii) participant observation in ten evaluation panel meetings. ResultsNarrative elements and the inclusion of the academic age were rated as most useful new CV elements, while the inclusion of two metrics, the h-index and the relative citation ratio, were received more critically. The omission of a full publication list had similar numbers of supporters and opponents among applicants and reviewers. Less experienced and junior applicants and reviewers rated the new format generally more positively than more senior applicants and reviewers. The text analysis of narrative elements yielded no significant gender specific differences. The participant observation revealed that the new elements in SciCV broadened the information base used in the evaluation of applicants but did not fundamentally alter traditional, publication-centred evaluation practices. ConclusionSciCV was a relevant and successful initiative for the SNSF, which showed that the implementation of a new, well-structured CV format is not only feasible but also something that many stakeholders welcome.The extensive experience and results obtained during the change process formed the basis for the development of SciCV 2.0 at the SNSF. It also offers a basis and guidance for other funding organisations planning similar initiatives.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- How to best evaluate applications for junior fellowships? Remote evaluation and face-to-face panel meetings compared
- Retractions and rewards in science: An open question for reviewers and funders
M. D. Ribeiro, M. Kalichman, S. M. Vasconcelos·bioRxiv·May 31, 2022
- Characterization of the Peer Review Network at the Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health
Kevin Boyack, Mei-Ching Chen, George Chacko·bioRxiv·Jul 26, 2014
- Insights from a survey-based analysis of the academic job market
J. D. Fernandes, S. Sarabipour, … A. Haage·bioRxiv·Dec 2, 2019
- Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators
N. Aubert Bonn, W. Pinxten·bioRxiv·Jun 22, 2020
- The Research Mind: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Evaluating Research Quality, Productivity, and Integrity by Mitigating Citation Bias
Sanjay Rathee, Chanchal Chaudhary·bioRxiv·Nov 8, 2025