On approval of the Rules for the Organization and Conduct of State Scientific and Technical Expertise

Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 891 dated August 1, 2011.

      Unofficial translation

      Footnote. Title as amended in Kazakh, the text in Russian has not been amended by the resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 30.12.2020 № 941.

      In accordance with subparagraph 9) of Article 3 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 18, 2011 "On Science", the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan HEREBY DECREES AS FOLLOWS:

      1. That the attached Rules for the Organization and Conduct of State Scientific and Technical Expertise shall be approved.

      Footnote. Paragraph 1 as amended in Kazakh, the text in Russian has not been amended by the resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 30.12.2020 № 941.

      2. That Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1385 dated December 27, 2002 "On Approval of the Rules for the Organization and Conduct of State Scientific and Technical Expertise” shall be deemed to have lost force (SAPP of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2002, No. 46, Article 471).

      3. This Decree shall come into force upon expiry of ten calendar days from the date of the first official publication.

      Prime Minister of the
Republic of Kazakhstan
K. Massimov 

  Approved by
Decree of the Government of the
Republic of Kazakhstan
No. 891 dated August 1, 2011

Rules for organization and conduct of state scientific and technical expertise

      Footnote. Rules – in the wording of the resolution of the Government of the RK dated 15.10.2021 № 745 (shall enter into force from the day of its first official publication).

Chapter 1. General provisions

      1. Rules for organization and conduct of state scientific and technical expertise (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) shall be developed in accordance with the Laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On science" and "On commercialization of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities" and shall regulate relations related to the organization and conduct of state scientific and technical expertise (hereinafter referred to as the SSTE), expertise of commercialization projects for the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities (hereinafter referred to as the RSSTA).

      2. The following concepts shall be used in these Rules:

      1) expert on assessing the validity of prices - an individual presenting conclusion on assessing the validity of the requested amount, being a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan (an expert involved in assessing the validity of the requested amount of financing for scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs must have higher education in the groups of specialties of economy and business, as well as work experience of at least ten years in the specialty);

      2) comprehensive expertise of commercialization projects of the RSSTA - an expertise carried out by involving the organizer of a group of experts who shall be specialists in various sectors of the economy, if an application is submitted in 3 or more sectors of the economy;

      3) applicant for RSSTA commercialization projects - an individual or legal entity that submitted an application for a grant for consideration;

      4) the RSSTA commercialization project - a document that includes the content of the planned work aimed at the practical application of the RSSTA, including the results of intellectual activity, in order to bring to the market new or improved goods, processes and services aimed at generating income;

      5) the RSSTA commercialization grant - budgetary and (or) extra budgetary funds provided on a gratuitous and irrevocable basis for the implementation of the RSSTA commercialization projects within the framework of priority sectors of the economy;

      6) a foreign expert involved in the expertise of commercialization projects of the RSSTA - an individual who shall not be a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, having the appropriate qualification, the degree of doctor or candidate of sciences, the degree of doctor of philosophy (PhD), doctor in profile, work experience in specialty at least 5 (five) years, experience in the specialty in foreign scientific organizations in the field of activity in which it intends to act as an expert;

      7) a Kazakhstani expert involved in the expertise of commercialization projects of the RSSTA - an individual who shall be a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, having the appropriate qualification, the academic degree of a doctor or candidate of sciences, the degree of doctor of philosophy (PhD), doctor in profile and work experience in the specialty for at least 5 (five) years in the field of activity in which he shall intend to act as an expert;

      8) a foreign expert involved in conducting the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs - an individual who shall not be a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, who shall have the appropriate qualification, the degree of doctor or candidate of sciences, the degree of doctor of philosophy (PhD), doctor in profile, work experience in specialty at least 5 (five) years, experience in the specialty in foreign scientific organizations, published at least four scientific articles and (or) reviews in journals included in the first two quartiles of the international Web of Science database for the last 5 (five) years and H- index at least five in the last 5 (five) years according to the international databases Web of Science and/or Scopus.

      Persons specializing in the humanities and social sciences, for the last 5 (five) years must have at least two articles and/or reviews in journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index and (or) Emerging Sources Citation Index of the Web of Science database and (or) having a Cite Score percentile in the Scopus database of at least 35 (thirty-five) at the time of appointment. For persons specializing in the humanities and social sciences, the requirement for the presence of the H- index of at least five in the last 5 (five) years shall not apply;

      9) a Kazakhstani expert involved in conducting the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs - an individual who shall be a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, having the appropriate qualification, the degree of doctor or candidate of sciences, the degree of doctor of philosophy (PhD), doctor in profile, work experience in specialty at least 5 (five) years and having at least 2 in the last 5 (five) years (two) scientific articles and/or reviews in journals included in the first three quartiles of the international Web of Science database, and the H- index of at least 3 (three) in the last five (5) years according to the international databases Web of Science and/or Scopus.

      Persons specializing in the humanities and social sciences, for the last 5 (five) years must have at least 1 (one) article or review in a journal indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index and (or) Emerging Sources Citation Index of the Web of Science database and (or) having a Cite Score percentile in the Scopus database of at least 35 (thirty-five) at the time of appointment, or at least 10 (ten) articles and (or) reviews in publications recommended by an authorized body in the field of education and science. For persons specializing in the humanities and social sciences, the requirement for the presence of the H- index of at least 3 (three) in the last 5 (five) years shall not apply.

      Persons specializing in the field of national security and defense, as well as those with appropriate access to work with projects containing information constituting state secrets shall not be subject to the requirements for the availability of publications and the H- index.

      Kazakhstani experts involved in conducting the SSTE final (intermediate) reports on scientific and scientific and technical activities within the framework of grant financing, for the last 5 (five) years must have at least 1 (one) article or review in a journal indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Science Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index and (or) Emerging Sources Citation Index of the Web of Science database and (or) having a Cite Score percentile in the Scopus database of at least 25 (twenty-five) at the time of assignment. These experts shall not be subject to the requirement for the presence of the H- index.

      10) facts of violations of scientific ethics - plagiarism, falsification, data fabrication, false co-authorship, assignment of other people's results in applications, sending the applicant a scientific project and (or) programs for different directions within the same financing source, duplication by the applicant of the SSTE facility or RSSTA commercialization projects, as well as other violations in the process of planning, evaluating, selecting, conducting and disseminating the results of scientific research, including the protection of the rights, safety and well-being of research objects (wildlife and habitat) and researchers;

      11) authorized body in the field of science - a state body carrying out inter-sectoral coordination and leadership in the field of science and scientific and technical activities;

      12) individual registration number (hereinafter referred to as the IRN) - individual registration number of the SSTE object or RSSTA commercialization projects assigned by the organizer to the applicant for grant or program-targeted financing, or RSSTA commercialization projects at the expense of the budget;

      13) comprehensive expertise of the SSTE facilities - an expertise carried out by organizing joint work of a group of Kazakhstani experts who shall be specialists in various fields of knowledge or various scientific areas of one field of knowledge, the result of which shall be the conclusion of experts with agreed comments and points on assessment criteria;

      14) commission expertise of the SSTE facilities - an expertise carried out by organizing joint work of a group of Kazakhstani experts who shall be specialists within one scientific direction, the result of which is the conclusion of experts with agreed comments and points on the assessment criteria;

      15) the SSTE conclusion - a conclusion formed in the information system of the organizer according to the form, according to Annex 1 to these Rules, based on the generalization of points for each assessment criterion for the SSTE facility;

      16) applicant for facilities of state scientific and technical expertise (the SSTE facilities) - a subject of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities accredited in an authorized body or an autonomous organization of education and its organizations on equal terms that implement scientific research;

      17) expert conclusion - a document that shall be drawn up by an expert and shall contain information on the results of his expertise of the SSTE facilities or projects for commercialization of RSSTA, as well as his conclusions on the issues posed to him, objective and independent of the interests of the customer and the organizer analytical assessment of the SSTE facility or project for commercialization of the RSSTA;

      18) customer - an authorized body in the field of science, which has concluded a reimbursable agreement with the organizer for the organization of the SSTE and expertise of commercialization projects of the RSSTA, submitted for the competition of grant or program-targeted financing on the financing of targeted scientific, scientific and technical programs, research work nominated for the State prize in the field of science and technology, as well as commercialization projects of the RSSTA;

      19) technological expertise (hereinafter referred to as the TE) - activities related to the assessment of relevance, scientific and technical potential, implementation (use) of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities, readiness for commercialization, technical and production risks of the project for commercialization of the RSSTA;

      20) organizer - National center for state scientific and technical expertise;

      21) threshold score - a the SSTE score of at least 25 points for applications within the framework of grant and program-targeted financing for scientific research and at least 21 points for applications in the priority area of ​ ​ science in the field of national security and defense;

      22) economic (marketing) expertise (hereinafter referred to as the EME) - activities related to the assessment of commercial attractiveness and validity of the declared financial and economic indicators of the project.

      3. the SSTE shall be carried out in the order to prepare an analytical assessment of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs, as well as projects for the commercialization of the RSSTA on the principles of independence, objectivity, competence, completeness, reliability, completeness and validity of expert conclusions.

      4. the SSTE objects shall be:

      1) scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs;

      2) research work nominated for the State prize in the field of science and technology;

      3) final (intermediate) reports on scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities within the framework of grant and program-targeted financing;

      4) the RSSTA commercialization projects.

      5. The organization of works on carrying out the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs proposed for financing from the state budget and commercialization projects of the RSSTA at the request of the customer shall be carried out by the organizer.

      6. the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs, as well as commercialization projects of the RSSTA, subject to financing from the state budget, shall be carried out by competent Kazakhstani and foreign experts, the main tasks of which shall be:

      1) expert assessment of objects taking into account scientific novelty, the proposed scientific and technical level, relevance, perspective, degree of development of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs;

      2) assessment of compliance of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs with the world level of scientific, technical and technological knowledge, trends and priorities of scientific and technological progress;

      3) assessment of the possibilities of achieving the goals of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs through the planned operations, the need and sufficiency of the estimated labor expenses, material resources;

      4) objective and comprehensive consideration of the results of the implementation of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs (reports) for substantive, organizational, material, informational support of scientific research, comparison of the results obtained with the applied goals;

      5) assessment of the significance of the SSTE objects;

      6) assessment of the validity of the amount of financing requested by the applicant for the implementation of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs;

      7) assessment of the proposed work aimed at the practical application of the RSSTA, including the results of intellectual activity, prospects for the launch of new or improved goods, processes and services aimed at extracting income, the economic validity of the requested amount of funding.

      7. The organizer shall ensure the unity of administration, independence, transparency and publicity of the results of the expertise of the SSTE facilities and commercialization projects of the RSSTA.

Chapter 2. Procedure for organization and conduct of state scientific and technical expertise

      8. The customer shall send to the organizer of the application for the SSTE of the SSTE facilities submitted for grant or program-targeted financing at the expense of the budget, in accordance with the requirements established by the Law, in the form specified in Annex 5 to the Rules for basic and program-targeted financing of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities, as well as grant financing of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities and commercialization of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities (hereinafter referred to as the financing Rules) approved by the resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated May 25, 2011 No. 575, within 3 (three) working days after the deadline for accepting applications for the competition. The customer shall also submit a list of additional evaluation criteria indicating the issues and indicators of monitoring the effectiveness of the research performed for the SSTE facilities submitted as part of the program-targeted financing.

      9. Applications from the date of their receipt from the customer shall be checked by the organizer for compliance with the following requirements of these Rules:

      1) compliance of the application with the requirements of the competition documentation and submission of the required documents;

      2) the absence of facts of plagiarism;

      3) the absence of duplication of the topic or content of the SSTE facility with previously submitted, but not approved for financing, or simultaneously submitted the SSTE facilities;

      4) the participant of the competition for grant or program-targeted financing shall have a certificate of accreditation of the subject of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities;

      5) compliance of the supervisor with the requirements of the competition documentation;

      6) compliance of the expected results with the requirements of the competition documentation.

      10. The organizer, through the information system, shall send applications to the applicant for revision that do not meet the requirements specified in paragraph 9 of these Rules, indicating all comments.

      In case of non-compliance with subparagraph 5) of paragraph 9 of these Rules, the applicant shall have the right to replace the supervisor in accordance with the requirements of the competition documentation.

      11. The applicant shall send the revised application through the information system of the organizer within 3 (three) working days from the date of sending the organizer for revision of the application.

      Upon receipt of the revised applications, the organizer shall check for the elimination of the previously specified comments, in case of non-elimination of the comments, he shall return the application to the applicant within 3 (three) working days from the date of receipt of the revised applications.

      The organizer shall return the applications that do not comply with paragraph 9 of these Rules to the customer within fifteen (15) working days from the date of their receipt from the customer.

      Within ten (10) working days from the date of their return from the organizer, the customer shall publish a list of returned applications from the organizer on its Internet resource.

      12. Organizer shall:

      1) organize work on carrying out the SSTE by sending each the SSTE facility for conducting the SSTE to experts or an expert, depending on the SSTE facility, by conducting a commission (comprehensive) expertise;

      2) provide qualitative and objective selection of the composition of Kazakhstani and (or) foreign experts for conducting the SSTE in accordance with their specialization and peculiarities of the SSTE facilities;

      3) select:

      two foreign experts and one Kazakhstani expert for conducting the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs within the framework of the competition and outside competitive procedures (if there is a reasonable absence of Kazakhstani experts in the field of research of the SSTE facility that meet the requirements of these Rules, a third foreign expert shall be involved);

      three Kazakhstani experts or by means of a commission (comprehensive) expertise to conduct the SSTE final (intermediate) reports of grant financing projects and program-oriented financing programs (in the event of a reasonable absence of one or two or three Kazakhstani experts in the field of research of reports meeting the requirements of these Rules, one or two or three foreign experts shall be involved respectively);

      three Kazakhstani experts for carrying out the SSTE work nominated for the state prize (if there is a reasonable absence of one or two or three Kazakhstani experts in the field of research of works nominated for the state prize that meet the requirements of these Rules, one or two or three foreign experts shall be involved, respectively);

      three Kazakhstani experts or by means of commission and (or) comprehensive expertise for conducting the SSTE scientific and scientific and technical projects and programs containing information constituting state secrets, as well as official information of limited distribution, in compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on state secrets;

      three Kazakhstani experts or through commission and (or) comprehensive expertise for conducting scientific and scientific and technical projects and programs in the priority area of ​ ​ science in the field of national security and defense;

      one expert to assess the validity of the requested financing for projects and programs;

      one foreign expert for conducting the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects with a implementation period of no more than 12 (twelve) months;

      one Kazakhstani expert for conducting the SSTE scientific, scientific and technical projects on the priority area of science in the field of national security and defense and (or) containing information constituting state secrets, as well as official information of limited distribution, in compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on state secrets with a implementation period of no more than 12 (twelve) months;

      4) form a data bank of electronic versions of the SSTE objects and a database on the SSTE facilities submitted for financing from the state budget received from the customer for the SSTE;

      5) carry out methodological and organizational and technical support of the SSTE, including by forming automated databases of Kazakhstani and foreign experts and concluding agreements with experts on the provision of services for conducting the SSTE;

      6) send the conclusions of the results of the SSTE and a ranked list of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs (reports), as well as commercialization projects of the RSSTA to the national scientific councils;

      7) evaluate the results of completed scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs (reports), as well as commercialization projects of the RSSTA.

      13. Experts shall be included in the database of Kazakhstani and foreign experts of the organizer after the conclusion of the agreement.

      Experts shall be checked for their compliance with the requirements of subparagraphs 6), 7), 8) and 9) of paragraph 2 of these Rules.

      Selection for the formation of a database of Kazakhstani and foreign experts shall be carried out using international databases Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics) and Scopus (Elsevier), as well as InCites analytical tools (Clarivate Analytics), SciVal (Elsevier) and Publons (Clarivate Analytics), based on scientometric indicators in accordance with their specialization and features of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs, as well as the RSSTA commercialization projects, candidates of which shall be submitted by foreign leading universities, research institutions, national science academies

      Experts shall conduct the SSTE and expertise of projects for commercialization of the RSSTA on the principles of independence, anonymity, competence, scientific approach, comprehensiveness, objectivity of research of the SSTE facility and validity of expert conclusions.

      The agreement with the expert should contain conditions on the terms of the expertise, confidentiality of information about the facilities of the SSTE, ensuring the preservation of commercial secrets of the materials submitted for expertise, compliance by the expert with the principles and standards of scientific ethics and guarantee the confidentiality of information about the expert.

      Information on termination of agreements at the initiative of an expert shall be entered into the automated database of Kazakhstani and foreign experts without good reason.

      In case of violation by the expert of the contractual conditions and (or) the principles of the SSTE established by these Rules, the organizer shall exclude it from the automated database.

      14. The organization and timing of the SSTE projects and programs shall include the following stages:

      1) selection of experts and conclusion of agreements with them on the provision of services for conducting the SSTE - no more than seven working days after the inspection of applications by the organizer for compliance with the requirements of paragraph 9 of these Rules;

      2) carrying out the SSTE - not more than twenty working days from the date of conclusion of the contract with the expert;

      3) assessment of the validity of the requested amount of financing - no more than seven working days after the completion of the SSTE.

      The organizer shall publish information on the completion of each stage on his Internet resource within three working days after its end.

      The organization and expertise of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs containing information constituting state secrets, as well as official information of limited distribution, shall be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on state secrets. The selection of experts shall be carried out from among Kazakhstani experts without taking into account the H- index, having appropriate access to work with projects and programs that make up state secrets.

      15. The organization and timing of the SSTE research work nominated for the State prize in the field of science and technology shall include the following stages:

      1) selection of experts and conclusion of contracts with them on the provision of services for conducting the SSTE - no more than seven working days from the date of receipt of work from the customer;

      2) carrying out the SSTE - no more than twenty working days from the date of conclusion of the contract with the expert.

      The organizer shall publish information on the completion of each stage on his Internet resource within three working days after its end.

      16. The organization and timing of the SSTE on the final (intermediate) reports on scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities within the framework of grant and program-targeted financing shall include the following stages:

      1) selection of experts and conclusion of agreements with them on the provision of services for conducting the SSTE - not more than five working days from the date of receipt of reports from the customer;

      2) carrying out the SSTE - no more than fifteen working days from the date of conclusion of the contract with the expert.

      The organizer shall publish information on the completion of each stage on his Internet resource within three working days after its end.

      The organization and expertise of the final (intermediate) reports containing information constituting state secrets, as well as official information of limited distribution, shall be carried out in compliance with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan on state secrets. The selection of the composition of experts shall be carried out from among Kazakhstani experts without taking into account the H- index, having appropriate access to work with the final (intermediate) reports constituting state secrets.

      17. An assessment of the validity of the requested amount of financing for applications shall be made in the form according to Annex 2 of the Rules, without any points being given.

      The conclusion of the expert on the SSTE facility shall be drawn up according to the forms according to Annexes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 to these Rules, depending on the SSTE facility.

      In the conclusion of the expert for each assessment criterion, the expert shall give a score according to the system of expert assessments for the SSTE facilities specified in Annex 9 to these Rules. Additional evaluation criteria for scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs shall be established by the organizer at the suggestion of the customer.

      When conducting a comprehensive (commission) expertise of the SSTE facility, an expert group is formed. From the members of the expert group, the chairman shall be elected and the secretary of the meeting of the expert group shall be determined. The expert group meeting shall be held in person and/or through online conferences. A comprehensive (commission) expertise shall be carried out with the participation of at least three and no more than fifteen experts, depending on the volume of materials submitted for expertise. Based on the results of the comprehensive (commission) expertise of the SSTE facility, an expert conclusion shall be drawn up on the forms, according to Annexes 6 or 7 to these Rules, depending on the SSTE facility.

      18. The results of the SSTE of SSTE facilities submitted for grant and program-targeted financing at the expense of the state budget at the request of the customer shall be the conclusion of SSTE.

      The organizer, based on the results of the SSTE, shall draw up a ranked list of applications in any form submitted for the competition of grant or program-targeted financing, on the financing of scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs, indicating the declared amounts of funding in it.

      For applications with a score below the SSTE threshold point, the organizer shall return the application with the results of the SSTE (indicating the SSTE score) to the applicants (scientific supervisor) through the organizer's Internet resource after the completion of the SSTE within three working days.

      Applications with a threshold SSTE score and above shall be submitted to the expert to assess the validity of the requested financing, together with the results of the SSTE (without specifying a SSTE score), within three business days of completion of the SSTE.

      19. The results of the assessment of the validity of the requested amount of funding for the application together with the results of the SSTE (without specifying the SSTE score) shall be sent to the relevant national scientific councils (hereinafter referred to as the NSC) within two working days.

      Upon completion of the review of the NSC applications, the organizer determines the total score for each of the applications by adding the score according to the conclusion of the SSTE and the score of the scorecard determined by the NSC.

      The organizer shall draw up a ranked list of applications, starting with the highest total score "from top to bottom" in each priority area, and shall send it to the relevant NSC for a decision within two working days.

      20. The organizer shall send the conclusion of the SNTE to the customer on research work nominated for the State prize in the field of science and technology.

      21. The organizer shall send the SSTE conclusion to the relevant NSC on the final (intermediate) reports on scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities within the framework of program and targeted financing.

      The organizer shall send the SSTE conclusion to the relevant NSC on the final reports on scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities within the framework of grant financing.

      An intermediate report on scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities within the framework of grant financing shall be carried out by the organizer in the form of monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of scientific, scientific and technical projects, the results of which shall be sent to the relevant NSC.

      22. The organizer shall publish on his Internet resource:

      1) IRN, final points based on the conclusion of the SSTE on the SSTE facilities that received a score below the threshold point of the SSTE, as part of the competition for grant or program-targeted financing at the expense of the state budget within 3 (three) working days after the SSTE within the framework of the specified competition;

      2) a general analysis on the involvement of Kazakhstani and foreign experts indicating the average H- index by organizations and countries annually at the end of the year, with the exception of information regarding Kazakhstani experts involved in conducting the SSTE facilities containing information constituting state secrets and service information of limited distribution;

      3) H- indexes of experts involved in conducting the SSTE on scientific, scientific and technical projects and programs, which shall be sent to the scientific supervisor and the applicant through the organizer's Internet resource after the completion of the SSTE.

      23. It is not allowed to exert pressure or other influence on the organizer and expert by the customer, the applicant and other persons.

      24. From the time the SSTE facility shall be submitted to the SSTE until the review of the NSC, applicants, supervisors and/or experts:

      1) respond to violations of scientific ethics, bioethics standards (for biomedical research on humans and animals), shall take measures to prevent and resolve conflicts of interest;

      2) provide objective, complete and reliable information;

      3) do not distort the process and results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities;

      4) do not commit actions (inaction) that entail violation of intellectual property rights or other damage to the research activities of other persons.

      The expert shall not conduct the SSTE of a specific scientific project and/or program in cases of:

      1) availability of personal or financial interest as a result of approval or rejection of the application;

      2) availability of joint publications with the executor of the scientific project and/or program, including co-authorship over the past five years, direct participation in the preparation of the application, planning joint publications based on the results of the study and the application of these results over the past 5 (five) years;

      3) direct management of the executor of the scientific project and (or) the program, being subordinate to him or providing him with consulting services within the last 5 (five) years;

      4) being married (married) or closely related to the executor of a scientific project and/or program;

      5) being closely related to the parents, spouse of the executor of the scientific project and (or) the program;

      6) membership in the NSC;

      7) if the expert was or is the scientific director of the dissertation work of the scientific director of the project or program;

      8) if the scientific director of the project or program was or is the scientific director of the dissertation work of the expert.

      The facts of violations of scientific ethics established by subparagraph 10) of paragraph 2 of these Rules shall not be allowed. If there are provided facts of violation of scientific ethics, evidence, justifications, including the use of technical means and the involvement of independent specialists, whose specialization correspond to the SSTE facility.

Chapter 3. Procedure for organization and expertise of projects for commercialization of results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities

      25. Expertise of RSSTA commercialization projects participating in the competition shall include technological and economic (marketing) expertise.

      26. Expertise of projects shall be carried out by Kazakhstani and foreign experts involved in the expertise of commercialization projects of the RSSTA, on the basis of contracts concluded by the organizer with each expert in accordance with paragraph 13 of these Rules.

      27. A comprehensive expertise shall be carried out in the event of an application for 3 or more sectors of the economy. When conducting a comprehensive expertise of the project, an expert group is formed consisting of three to nine experts (in odd numbers).

      28. The organizer shall organize a technological and economic (marketing) expertise of the applications corresponding to the competition documentation within forty-five (45) calendar days from the date of completion of the inspection of applications for compliance with the competition documentation in accordance with the Rules for financing.

      29. Organize shall:

      1) generate a database of Kazakhstani and foreign experts for conducting an expertise of commercialization projects of the RSSTA;

      2) on an ongoing basis replenishes (updates) the formed database of Kazakhstani and foreign experts;

      3) form a data bank of electronic versions of applications submitted to the competition;

      4) for each application, depending on the priority sector of the economy in which the application shall be submitted, shall select experts from the database;

      5) send electronic versions of applications for conducting the TE to at least two (Kazakhstani and (or) foreign) experts or an expert group for conducting a comprehensive expertise;

      6) send electronic versions of applications for EME to at least two Kazakhstani experts or an expert group for a comprehensive expertise.

      30. The expert conclusion (comprehensive expert conclusion) on the project the TE shall be drawn up in the form specified in Annex 10 of the Rules.

      31. The conclusion of the expert (comprehensive conclusion of the experts) on the EME of the project shall be drawn up in the form in accordance with Annex 11 to these Rules.

      32. In the conclusion of the expert on each assessment criterion, Kazakhstani and (or) foreign experts shall give a score on the system of expert assessments of the commercialization project of the RSSTA in the form according to Annex 9 to these Rules.

      33. The organizer shall, on the basis of the conclusions of the TE and the EME, generate summary expert review conclusions for each project with final scores in the form according to Annex 12 of the Rules and submit them to the authorized body within 4 (four) calendar days.

      34. Within three (3) calendar days after the receipt of the summary conclusions of the project expertise, the organizer shall submit the summary conclusions of the expertise to the NSC for making a decision on financing or refusal to finance the RSSTA commercialization project.

  Annex 1
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the state scientific and technical expertise
____________________________________________________________________
(IRN and SSTE facility name)


r/n

Name of evaluation criteria

Average score
(from 0 to 9)

Comments from all experts with answers to leading questions

Expert 1

Expert 2

Expert 3

1.






2.






3.






4.






5.






Average score of the SSTE:

      Organizer
___________________
Date of transfer in NSC
__________________

  Annex 2
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the expert on assessment of the validity of the requested amount within the framework of grant and program-targeted financing, KZT
____________________________________________________________
(IRN and the SSTE facility name)


r/n

Name of the expense item

Requested amount

Cost of expenses based on the position of the SSTE experts

Expert comments on the validity of the amount (100-150 words)

*Expert 1

* Expert 2

* Expert 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

"Remuneration (including taxes and other mandatory payments to the budget)"**






2

Business trips**






3

"Scientific and organizational support, other services and works" **






4

Purchase of materials (for individuals and legal entities), purchase of equipment and/or software (for legal entities)






5

Rental expense, operating expenses of equipment and equipment used for the implementation of research






6

Total amount to financing a project or program recommended by an expert to assess the validity of the requested amount






      Full name (if any) of the expert on validity

      the requested amount

      _____________________________________
* - 3, 4 columns shall be filled in based on the position of the SSTE experts given in

      conclusions of the SSTE experts in accordance with Annexes 3, 4 and 5 of these Rules.

      * * - cost of expenses based on prices (at the time of assessment)

  Annex 3
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the expert on grant financing application
____________________________________
(IRN and the SSTE facility name)

№ r/n

Name of evaluation criterion

Evaluation of the expert

Indicator

Criterion score

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Novelty, relevance and perspective of the project


Novelty and relevance of the proposed scientific and technical level of the project (no more than 200 words) How new are the hypotheses, ideas and expected results of the research?
How new are the scientific and/or methodological problem areas under study within the project? How new are the approaches and methods used by the applicant within the framework of the research plan? How modern and relevant are they? How relevant is the literature referenced by the authors of the project?

(from 0 to 3)


The importance, relevance of the proposed scientific and technical level and the degree of development of the project for the development of science (no more than 300 words)
How important are scientific problems solved by the project? How much does the project correspond to global trends? How promising are the hypotheses, ideas and expected results of the study? Is the project capable of becoming a breakthrough for the development of science? How high is the level of journals selected to publish study results?
Does the quality and quantity of publications planned within the project meet the requirements of the competition documentation? How reasonable is the number of articles the applicant plans to publish?

(from 0 to 6)

2.

Quality and feasibility of the study plan


Quality of the research plan (not more than 150 words)
How justified is the research problem? How clearly does the applicant formulate the goals, questions, hypotheses and assumptions of the research plan? Are hypotheses (assumptions) scientific and realistic?

(from 0 to 3)


Quality of research methodology (not more than 250 words)
How justified are the methods used in the research? How do the methods and approaches applied correspond to the goals, objectives, hypotheses and expected results? How reliable are the applicant's input data collection methods and sources? Does the applicant demonstrate consistency between research questions and data collection methods? How well are experiments planned for subsequent statistical processing of the obtained data? How effectively will the applicant deal with issues related to the prevention of plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data, false co-authorship and assignment of results? To what extent has the applicant worked out ethical questions concerning experimental research on animals and humans? How well are the applicant complied with the relevant standards? Other expert comments on the quality of the proposed methods and approaches to research and their compliance with the goal, objectives and expected results, the quality of the research plan as a whole.

(from 0 to 3)


Achievability of results (not more than 250 words)
How likely is it that the expected results will be achieved within the project? How likely is it that the results of the researches will be accepted for publication in the journals listed in the application?
What are the risks to successful completion of the research? What is their degree and how well has the applicant worked out the issues of risk response? Are there alternative ways and approaches to the project? To what extent does the applicant's research plan have advantages over alternatives?

(from 0 to 3)

3.

Expected results and their significance


Project effectiveness and efficiency (not more than 250 words)
How commensurate are the expected project results with the requested amount of funding? How effectively will project funds be spent to achieve the expected results? What measures will be taken to improve the effectiveness and effectiveness of the research?

(from 0 to 3)


Significance and applicability of expected results (not more than 300 words)
In what area can the expected results of the research be applied? What is the nature and scale of the task solved with their help?
Are the expected results competitive compared to the existing analogues (in the absence of analogues - in comparison with the existing solutions of a similar problem)?
What is the possible social, economic, environmental or other effect of the project?
What are the ways to use the expected research results? How ready will they be for practical application and commercialization? What restrictions will exist for their application?
How likely is it that articles published on the results of the project will be regularly used and cited?
What role does the project play in the training of young researchers (students, undergraduates, doctoral students, post-doctoral students) no older than 40 years old?
How clearly and fully articulated is the significance of the expected results? To what extent is the applicant's conclusion on the significance of the expected results reliable and reasonable?

(from 0 to 6)

4

Competence and scientific reserve of the research group


Scientific level and reserve of the project supervisor (not more than 250 words)
Does the supervisor regularly publish articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals in the direction of the project, including as the main author (author for correspondence or first author)? How high is the level of journals in which the supervisor publishes the results of his research? Does the supervisor have experience in successfully leading scientific projects in which articles are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Does the supervisor have a scientific reserve in the form of articles on the topic of the project?

(from 0 to 3)


Quality of the research group (not more than 250 words)
How well is the composition of the research group justified? How clearly is the role of each of the research group members in the research justified? To what extent is their contribution necessary to complete the studies in accordance with the established goal, objectives, expected results and the proposed research plan? How relevant are the qualifications and experience of the study team members to their roles and positions in the project? Do the project participants have sufficient qualifications to work on the purchased equipment?
If foreign scientists participate in the project, is their participation justified in terms of their role in achieving the goal, objectives and expected results of the project? Does the field and level of qualification of foreign experts meet the needs of the research plan?

(from 0 to 3)


Resource availability and infrastructure access (not more than 300 words)
How does the infrastructure available to the applicant meet the needs of the research plan? How much research equipment and other tools available to the applicant make it possible to apply the proposed research approaches and methods? How reasonable is the application of third-party infrastructure in the project? How reasonable is the purchase of equipment within the project in terms of the purpose, objectives and scale of the project? Do the materials purchased by the applicant within the project comply with the research plan? Do the project participants have sufficient qualifications to work on the purchased equipment? Will project participants be able to effectively use the purchased equipment, including after the completion of the project? How reasonable is the involvement of co-executors in the implementation of the project? Can study team members do the work themselves?

(from 0 to 3)

5

Interdisciplinary project


(not more than 100 words)
2 points - if the project is interdisciplinary in terms of ensuring cooperation between wide scientific areas, the interdisciplinary approach is fully justified in the application and is necessary to achieve the project goal;
1 score - if the project is interdisciplinary, but the approach presented in the application is not sufficiently justified or does not fully meet the goal of the project, or the interdisciplinary approach is assumed in terms of interaction between narrow scientific areas;
0 score - if the project is not interdisciplinary, or the approach presented in the application is not justified and does not meet the goal of the project.
Briefly justify the conclusion of the expert.

Total score

Total score for all of the above mentioned evaluation criteria

Validity of the requested financing

(not more than 250 words)
Based on the main quantitative parameters of the application (for example, the number of researchers, the volume of purchased materials and equipment, the number of business trips, etc.), shall estimate how much funding requested by the applicant (in monetary and/or natural units of measurement of the resource) shall correspond to the significance of the project and the actual amount of funds required to achieve the goal and expected project results.
If adjustments are necessary, indicate which specific articles and in what amount (quantitatively) adjustments are required without prejudice to the achievement of the project objectives.

Compliance with priority direction

(not more than 100 words)
To assess how the application corresponds to the priority direction and the specialized scientific direction in which it was submitted, to briefly justify the expert's conclusion.

Strengths

(no more than 150 words)
Briefly list the key advantages of the study and its characteristics that will achieve the stated goal.

Weaknesses

(no more than 150 words)
Briefly list the main shortcomings of the study and the extent of their impact on the achievement of expected results. Separately, highlight the shortcomings that are critical for the implementation of the project and call into question the achievement of its goal.

 
Full name (if any) of the expert ______________________________________


  Annex 4
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the expert on the application within the framework of program-targeted financing
______________________________________________________________
(IRN and name of the SSTE facility)

№ r/n

Name of evaluation criterion

Expert assessment

Indicator

Criterion score

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Novelty, relevance and perspective of the program


Novelty and relevance of the proposed scientific and technical level of the program (not more than 200 words)
How new are the hypotheses, ideas and expected results of the research? How new is the scientific and/or methodological problem areas investigated under the program? How new are the approaches and methods used by the applicant within the framework of the research plan? How modern and relevant are they? How relevant is the literature referenced by the authors of the project?
The importance, relevance of the proposed scientific and technical level and the degree of development of the program for the development of science (no more than 300 words)
How important are scientific problems solved by the program? How much does the program correspond to global trends? How promising are the hypotheses, ideas and expected results of the research? Is the program capable of becoming a breakthrough for the development of science? How high is the level of journals selected to publish research results?
Does the quality and quantity of publications planned under the program meet the requirements of the competition documentation? How reasonable is the number of articles the applicant plans to publish?

(from 0 to 6)

2.

Competence and reserve of the supervisor and research group
Quality and feasibility of the research plan


Competence and reserve of the supervisor (not more than 300 words)
Does the supervisor have experience in successfully leading scientific projects (especially large ones) and programs in which articles are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? Does the supervisor have a scientific reserve in the form of articles in prestigious peer-reviewed journals on the topic of the program? Does the supervisor regularly publish articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals in the direction of the program, including as the main author (author for correspondence or first author)? How high is the level of journals in which a scientific supervisor publishes the results of his research? Competence and reserve of the research group (not more than 300 words)
How well is the composition of the research group (including co-executors) justified? How clearly is the role of each co-performer and research group member in the research justified? To what extent is their contribution necessary to complete the researches in accordance with the established goal, objectives, expected results and the proposed research plan? To what extent do the qualifications and experience of members of the research group (including co-executors) correspond to their roles and positions in the program? Do the program participants have sufficient qualifications to work on the purchased equipment?
If foreign scientists participate in the program, is their participation justified in terms of their role in achieving the goal, objectives and expected results of the program? Does the field and level of qualification of foreign experts meet the needs of the research plan?
Other expert comments on the quality of the research team and its compliance with the research needs.

(from 0 to 6)




Quality and scientific level of the research plan (not more than 350 words)
How clearly does the applicant formulate the goals, issues, hypotheses and assumptions of the research plan? Are hypotheses (assumptions) scientific and realistic? Does the research plan take into account recent achievements in science?
How modern and scientifically justified are research methods? How do the methods and approaches applied correspond to the goals, objectives, hypotheses and expected results?
How reliable are the applicant's input data collection methods and sources? Does the applicant demonstrate consistency between research questions and data collection methods? How well are experiments planned for subsequent statistical processing of the obtained data?
How effectively will program funds be spent to achieve the results specified in the terms of reference? What measures will be taken to improve the effectiveness and output of the research?
How effectively will the applicant deal with issues related to the prevention of plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data, false co-authorship and assignment of results?
To what extent has the applicant worked out ethical questions concerning experimental research on animals and humans? How well are the applicant complied with the relevant standards?
Other expert comments on the quality of the proposed methods and approaches to research and their compliance with the goal, objectives and expected results, the quality of the research plan as a whole.

(from 0 to 6)


Quality of the research infrastructure for plan implementation (not more than 300 words)
How does the infrastructure available to the applicant and co-executors meet the needs of the research plan?
How much research equipment and other tools available to the applicant and co-executors allow applying the proposed research approaches and methods?
How justified is the purchase of equipment within the program from the standpoint of its purpose, objectives and scale? Do the materials purchased by the applicant within the program comply with the research plan? Will program participants be able to effectively use the purchased equipment, including after its completion?

(from 0 to 6)

3

Achievability and quality of expected results


Achievability and quality of direct results (not more than 300 words)
How do the expected results in the application correspond to the direct results specified in the terms of reference? How high is the probability that the direct results specified in the statement of work will be achieved within the framework of the program? How scientifically justified are ways to achieve direct results? How likely is it that the results of the studies will be accepted for publication in the journals listed in the application?
What are the risks to successful completion of the study? What is their degree and how well has the applicant worked out the issues of risk management? Are there alternative ways and approaches to implementing the program? To what extent does the applicant's research plan have advantages over alternatives?

(fro 0 to 6)


Achievability of final results (not more than 300 words)
To what extent do the expected results and their effect (social, economic, environmental or other) in the application correspond to the final results specified in the terms of reference? How high is the probability that the final results specified in the technical task, will it be achieved within the program or after its completion? Will the expected results be competitive against the existing analogues (in the absence of analogues - in comparison with the existing solutions of a similar problem) for their practical application and/or commercialization?

(from 0 to 6)

4

Interdisciplinary of the program


(not more than 100 words)
2 scores - if the program is interdisciplinary in terms of ensuring cooperation between wide scientific areas, the interdisciplinary approach is fully justified in the application and is necessary to achieve the goal of the program.
1 score- if the program is interdisciplinary, but the approach presented in the application is not sufficiently justified or does not fully meet the goal of the program, or an interdisciplinary approach is assumed in terms of interaction between narrow scientific areas.
0 score - if the program is not interdisciplinary, or the approach presented in the application is not justified and does not meet the goal of the program.
Briefly justify the conclusion of the expert.

Final score


Total scores for all of the above evaluation criteria.

Validity of the requested funding
 

(not more than 250 words)
Based on the main quantitative parameters of the application (for example, the number of researchers, the amount of materials and equipment purchased, the number of trips, etc.), it is necessary to assess how the amount of funding requested by the applicant corresponds to the significance of the program and the actual amount of funds required to achieve its goal and expected results. If adjustments are required, specify which articles and to what extent adjustments are required without prejudice to the objectives of the program.

Strengths

(no more than 150 words)
Briefly list the key advantages of the research and its characteristics that will achieve the stated goal of the program.

Weaknesses

(no more than 150 words)
Briefly list the main shortcomings of the research and the extent of their impact on the achievement of expected results. Separately, highlight the shortcomings that are critical for the implementation of the program and call into question the achievement of its goal.

 
Full name (if any) of the expert________________________________________

  Annex 5
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the expert on the application within the framework of program-targeted financing outside the competitive procedures
_______________________________________
(IRN name of the SSTE facility)

№ r/n

Name of evaluation criteria

Total score

Indicator


1

2

3

4

5

1.

Novelty, relevance and perspective of the program


Novelty and relevance of the proposed scientific and technical level of the program (not more than 200 words)
How new are the hypotheses, ideas and expected results of the study? How new is the scientific and/or methodological problem areas investigated under the program? How new are the approaches and methods used by the applicant within the framework of the research plan? How modern and relevant are they? How relevant is the literature referenced by the authors of the project?
The importance, relevance of the proposed scientific and technical level and the degree of development of the program for the development of science (no more than 300 words)
How important are scientific problems solved by the program? How much does the program correspond to global trends? How promising are the hypotheses, ideas and expected results of the research? Is the program capable of becoming a breakthrough for the development of science? How high is the level of journals selected to publish research results?
Does the quality and quantity of publications planned under the program meet the requirements of the competition documentation? How reasonable is the number of articles the applicant plans to publish?

(from 0 to 6)

2.

Research plan innovation


(no more than 150 words)
Is the information provided by the applicant to substantiate the innovation of the research plan sufficient to evaluate the application for this criterion? How valid and reliable are the applicant's arguments about the innovation of the research plan? Other expert comments on the applicant's justification for the innovation of the research plan.

(from 0 to 3)

(not more than 300 words)
How new are the expected results of the research? How new is the scientific and/or methodological problem areas investigated under the program? How new are the approaches and methods used by the applicant within the framework of the research plan? How modern and relevant are they?
How high is the level of journals selected to publish study results?
How relevant are the expected results of the study in the global and industry aspects?
Other expert comments on the innovation of the research plan.

(from 0 to 3)

3.

Quality and feasibility of the research plan


(not more than 300 words)
How justified is the research problem? How clearly does the applicant formulate the goals, questions, hypotheses and assumptions of the research plan? Are hypotheses (assumptions) scientific?
How justified are the methods used in the research? How do the methods and approaches applied correspond to the goals, objectives, hypotheses and expected results? How reliable are the applicant's input data collection methods and sources? Does the applicant demonstrate consistency between research questions and data collection methods? How well are experiments planned for subsequent statistical processing of the obtained data? How effectively will the applicant deal with issues related to the prevention of plagiarism, falsification and fabrication of data, false co-authorship and assignment of results? To what extent has the applicant worked out ethical issues concerning experimental research on animals and humans? How well are the applicant complied with the relevant standards? Other expert comments on the quality of the proposed methods and approaches to research and their compliance with the goal, objectives and expected results, the quality of the research plan as a whole.

(from 0 to 3)

(not more than 250 words)
How realistic are the objectives, hypotheses, and expected results of the research plan? How do the resources, timelines and content of the work performed correspond to the goals, objectives, methodology and expected results of the research? What are the risks to successful completion of the research? What is their degree and how well has the applicant worked out the issues of risk response?
Are there alternative ways and approaches to implementing the program? To what extent does the applicant's research plan have advantages over alternatives?
How reasonable is the number of articles the applicant plans to publish? Does the quality and number of publications meet the requirements of the competition documentation? How likely is it that the results of the researches will be accepted for publication in the journals listed in the application? How likely is the publication of research results in leading scientific journals from the first quartiles of bibliographic bases? Other expert comments on the feasibility of the research plan.

(from 0 to 3)

4.

Significance and applicability of expected results


(no more than 150 words)
How clearly and fully articulated is the significance of the expected results? To what extent is the applicant's conclusion on the significance of the expected results reliable and valid?

(from 0 to 3)

(not more than 300 words)
In what area can the expected results of the research be applied? What is the nature and scale of the task solved with their help? Are the expected results competitive compared to the existing analogues (in the absence of analogues - in comparison with the existing solutions of a similar problem)? How justified is the social, economic, environmental or other effect of the implementation of the program? How will the research results affect the level and competitiveness of the scientific and technical potential of Kazakhstan? In addition to solving strategically important state tasks, does the successful achievement of the goal and objectives of the program significantly change the situation in the field of production, science, education? How much do the results contribute to the development of strategically important government tasks? Does the program involve obtaining results that have significant potential for implementation, commercialization, and product creation? For a social program, is the coverage of potential beneficiaries (improved living, working conditions, etc.) significant when implementing (using) the results of the program? Is the expected program results sustainable, energy efficient, competitive? Is a forecast of the consequences/results of the implementation of scientific, scientific and technical programs achievable? Is the achievement of scientific and technical, socio-economic, environmental (if necessary) consequences/results of the implementation of programs ensured? What are the ways to use the expected research results? How ready will they be for practical use? What restrictions will exist for their application? How likely is it that articles published on the results of the project will be regularly cited by other scientists? Other expert comments on the significance of the expected research results.

(from 0 to 6)

5.

Applicant's competence and quality of the research environment


(no more than 150 words)
How fully and qualitatively described are the research group and the research environment? How much does their description allow you to assess compliance with the research plan?

(from 0 to 2)

(not more than 300 words)
How well is the composition of the research group justified?
How clearly is the role of each of the research group members in the research justified? To what extent is their contribution necessary to complete the studies in accordance with the established goal, objectives, expected results and the proposed research plan?
How appropriate are the qualifications and expertise of the supervisor and members of the study group to the needs and profile of the research? Does the supervisor regularly publish articles in leading international peer-reviewed scientific journals as the main author (author for correspondence or first author), including in the direction of the program?
How much does the role of scientists under the age of 40 (inclusive), undergraduates, postgraduates and PhD students in the research contribute to their training as researchers? How justified is their role according to the research plan?
Other expert comments on the quality of the research group and its compliance with the research needs.

(from 0 to 3)




(not more than 300 words)
How does the infrastructure available to the applicant meet the needs of the research plan? How much research equipment and other tools available to the applicant make it possible to apply the proposed research approaches and methods? How reasonable is the application of third-party infrastructure in the program? How justified is the purchase of equipment within the program from the standpoint of the purpose, objectives and scale of the program? Do the materials purchased by the applicant within the program comply with the research plan?
Do the program participants have sufficient qualifications to work on the purchased equipment? Will program members be able to effectively use the purchased equipment, including after the completion of the program?
How reasonable is the involvement of co-executors in the implementation of the program? Can the research group members do the work themselves?
How much does the study contribute to the integration of Kazakhstan into the world scientific community?
How reasonable are scientific business trips within the framework of the program? How much do they contribute to the goal and expected results of the research?
Other expert comments on the quality of the research environment and its compliance with the research plan.

(from 0 to 3)

(up to 50 words, only foreign scientists with a H- index of at least 10 )
1 score - if the participation of foreign scientists and their role in the research are fully justified, the field and level of their competence fully meets the needs of the research plan and their contribution to the implementation of the program is necessary to achieve the goal;
0.5 score - if the participation of foreign scientists, the field and their level of competence generally meet the needs of the program, their role and contribution positively affect the achievement of the research goal, but the successful completion of research is possible without their participation;
0 score - if the participation of foreign scientists in the program is unreasonable and (or) the field and the level of their qualifications do not meet the needs of the program, and (or) their contribution to achieving the goal of the program is insignificant, or the participation of foreign scientists in the program is not provided.

(from 0 to 1)

6.

Interdisciplinary research


(up to 50 words, only foreign scientists with a H- index of at least 10)
1 score - if the participation of foreign scientists and their role in the study are fully justified, the field and level of their competence fully meets the needs of the research plan and their contribution to the implementation of the program is necessary to achieve the goal;
0.5 score - if the participation of foreign scientists, the field and their level of competence generally meet the needs of the program, their role and contribution positively affect the achievement of the research goal, but the successful completion of research is possible without their participation;
0 score - if the participation of foreign scientists in the program is unreasonable and (or) the field and the level of their qualifications do not meet the needs of the program, and (or) their contribution to achieving the goal of the program is insignificant, or the participation of foreign scientists in the program is not provided.

Total score


Total scores for all of the above evaluation criteria.

Validity of the requested financing

(not more than 250 words)
Based on the main quantitative parameters of the application (for example, the number of researchers, the amount of materials and equipment purchased, the number of business trips, etc.), it is necessary to estimate how much funding requested by the applicant corresponds to the significance of the program and the actual amount of funds required to achieve its goal and expected results. If adjustments are required, specify which articles and to what extent adjustments are required without prejudice to the objectives of the program.

Compliance with priority direction
 

(not more than 100 words)
To assess how the application corresponds to the priority direction and the specialized scientific direction in which it was submitted, to briefly justify the expert's conclusion.

Strengths

(not more than 150 words)
Briefly list the key advantages of the research and its characteristics that will achieve the stated goal of the program.

Weaknesses

(not more than 150 words)
Briefly list the main shortcomings of the research and the extent of their impact on the achievement of expected results. Separately, highlight the shortcomings that are critical for the implementation of the program and call into question the achievement of its goal.

Full name (if any) of the expert_________________________________


  Annex 6
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the expert on the work-in-progress report within the framework of program-targeted financing
№ _______________________________________________
(IRN and name of the SSTE facility)

Name of evaluation criteria

Score
(from 0 to 9)

Comments of the expert/expert group

1.

Program of management quality


Is the composition of the research group justified in terms of quantity and competence for solving program tasks? Is the purchased equipment used for research? Are young researchers involved in the program, as planned in the application? How scientifically substantiated and proven are the main findings from the research? Are they new and important for subsequent publication as articles in leading international journals or for application in another form?

2.

Assessment of the quality of the applied methodology for scientific research


Assess the scientific validity and compliance of the applied methodology with the specifics of the researches. Do the methods used allow you to test the hypotheses put forward and achieve the goal of the program? Are they the most effective, are they reliable? Are experiments carried out in several parallels with subsequent statistical processing of data, including the calculation of standard deviations, probability of fidelity of the null hypothesis, etc.? Are the error bars on the experimentally obtained graphs postponed? Do the methods used comply with the norms and principles of scientific ethics?

3.

Assessment of the achievement of the goals set in the program


Are the project/program objectives implemented according to the previously approved research plan? (in advance, with reasonable changes, unreasonably deviates from the plan). Is there any doubt that the program will not achieve its goal? Is it necessary to stop funding this program in this regard?

Final score (amount of scores by evaluation criteria)



Strengths



Weaknesses



      Full name (if any) of the expert ________________________

      For comprehensive/commission expertise

      Chairman of the expert group ____________________________________

      Secretary of the expert group _______________________________________

      Members of the expert group __________________________________________

  Annex 7
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion of the expert on the final report within the framework of grant or program-targeted funding of scientific research
_______________________________________________
(IRN and name of the SSTE facility)

Name of evaluation criteria

Score
(from 0 to 9)

Comments of the expert/expert group

1.

Novelty of the results obtained


(7-9 scores)
Fundamentally new results were obtained, a new theory, a new pattern was discovered; the phenomenon has been studied in a new way or for the first time: the structure of the content, its essence are disclosed. The novelty of the results is confirmed by at least one article in the international scientific journal from the first quartile of bibliographic bases (indicating the individual registration number of the project). A fundamentally new device has been invented, a method that allows you to create fundamentally new products. Inventions are patented or patentable.

(4-6 scores)
Some general patterns, methods were obtained, a new connection was found between known facts, new information was obtained that significantly reduced the uncertainty of available knowledge, and an effective solution was found as a result of the extension of known positions to new objects. A significant, fundamental improvement of the process, method and (or) development was made, a partial rational modification was made (with signs of novelty). The novelty of the results is confirmed by at least one article in the international scientific journal from the first three quartiles of bibliographic bases (indicating the individual registration number of the project).

(0-3 score)
The result is obtained on the basis of simple generalizations, analysis of factor relationships, and extension of known principles to new objects. Description of individual factors, dissemination of previously obtained results, abstract reviews are given.

2.

Level of scientific study


(7-9 scores)
Performing complex theoretical calculations, checking on a large amount of experimental data in several parallels with subsequent statistical processing.

(4-6 scores)
Low complexity of calculations, checking on a small amount of experimental data.

(0-3 scores)
Theoretical calculations are simple, the experiment was not carried out.

3.

Prospects for using results


(7-9 scores)
The results of the project can be used in many scientific areas, are extremely important for world science, which is confirmed by at least one article in the international scientific journal from the first quartile of bibliographic bases (indicating the individual registration number of the project). There is commercial potential: it is possible to produce competitive commodity products, processes or services in the event of commercialization of results.

(4-6 scores)
The results obtained are important for the priority scientific areas of Kazakhstan, which is confirmed by at least one article in the international scientific journal from the first three quartiles of bibliographic bases (indicating the individual registration number of the project). The results can be used in the development of new technical solutions, have the potential for implementation in practice, production in Kazakhstan.

(0-3 scores)
The results can be used to develop subsequent research and development.

4.

Completion of the results


 
(7-9 scores)
The research results are published in international peer-reviewed scientific publications indexed in one of the leading international citation systems (bibliographic bases), indicating the individual registration number of the project. The number of articles and log level are as planned in the project requisition. The results are protected by intellectual property rights.

(4-6 scores)
Recommendations, detailed analysis, proposals are presented. The number of articles published in foreign peer-reviewed scientific publications indexed in one of the leading bibliographic bases, indicating the individual registration number of the project, as well as the level of journals in which they are published, is less than planned in the application for the project. There is a terms of reference for development work.

(0-3 scores)
A review, collection of information, articles in foreign peer-reviewed scientific publications indexed in one of the leading bibliographic bases was not published.

Final score (amount of scores by evaluation criteria)



Strengths


Weaknesses


      Full name (if any) of the expert ___________________________

      For complex/commission expertise

      Chairman of the expert group ___________________________

      Secretary of the expert group ______________________________

      Members of the expert group _________________________________

      Date of preparation ________________________________________

  Annex 8
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Expert conclusion on the work nominated for the State prize of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the field of science and technology
________________________________________
(name of the SSTE facility)

Name of evaluation criteria

Score
(from 1 to 9)

Comments of the expert /expert group

1.

The degree of scientific novelty of the results obtained with the world level, the relevance of the studies conducted



2.

Evaluation of the methodology used for scientific research



3.

Evaluation of the scientific and practical significance of the main research results



4.

Assessment of the contribution of work to the development of science and technology



5.

Total score (amount of scores by evaluation criteria)



Strengths



Weaknesses



      Full name (if any) of the expert _____________________________

  Annex 9
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

System of expert assessments for intermediate reports and works nominated for the State prize of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the field of science and technology, and the project of commercialization of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities

Threshold evaluation

Score

Evaluation

Description of evaluation with indication of strengths and weaknesses

High

9

Exceptionally

No weaknesses

8

Outstanding

With dismissive weaknesses

7

Excellent

With some minor weaknesses

Medium

6

Very good

With numerous minor weaknesses

5

Good

With some strengths and moderate weaknesses

4

Satisfactory

With some strengths but one significant weakness

Poor

3

Weak

With minor strengths and numerous weaknesses

2

Unsatisfactory

No strengths and significant weaknesses

1

Extremely unsatisfactory

No strengths


0


Absent

      _________________________________

  Annex 10
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion (comprehensive) of process expert review experts on the project
"________________________________________"

№ r/n

Name of evaluation criteria

Scores
( from 1 to 9)

Expert comments
(at least 500 words for all criteria)

1. Relevance

1.1

Assessment of the importance of the project implementation to the global economy



1.2

Assessment of the importance of the project implementation to the national economy



1.3

Assessment of compliance of RSSTA commercialization projects with trends and priorities of scientific and technological progress



Average score by criterion 1


2. Scientific and technical potential of the project

2.1

Degrees of scientific and technical novelty, prospects, development of the project



2.2

Comparative evaluation of product (services) with existing analogues in the market



2.3

Technological (technical) feasibility of measures to achieve the project goal



Average score by criterion 2


3. Project readiness for commercialization

3.1

Assessment of opportunities to achieve the goal of the RSSTA commercialization project through planned activities



3.2

Sufficient competence of the team to implement the project



3.3

Assessment of the material and technical base on which the project is planned to be implemented



Average score by criterion 3


4. Assessment of technical and production risks

4.1

Technical risks associated with the implementation of the technical/technological solution, including the impossibility of technical implementation



4.2

Production risks associated with the organization of production, including the lack of the necessary raw material base, identification of environmental problems



Average score by criterion 4


Final score (amount of average scores by evaluation criteria)


Strengths


Weaknesses


      Full name (if any) of the expert

      Date of the expertize __________________

  Annex 11
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Conclusion (comprehensive) of experts of economic (marketing) expertise on the project
"________________________________________"

№ r/n

Name of evaluation criteria

Score
(form 1 to 9)

Expert comments
(at least 500 words for all criteria)

Marketing researches

1.1

Business demand for the RSSTA offered for commercialization



1.2

Availability of interested potential consumers of the product/service



1.3

Quality of target market development for product/service sales identified by geographical, sectoral and other characteristics



1.4

Availability of confirmed data on the market volume (within Kazakhstan and the world market)



1.5

Competitive advantages of products or services over existing counterparts



Average score by criterion 1


2. Economic indicators of the project

2.1

Assessment of the business – model of the project



2.2

The validity of the presented economic indicators, including the validity of the cost and sales price of the proposed product/service



2.3

The validity of attracting the proposed number of team members



2.4

Availability of raw materials, materials, etc.



Average score by criterion 2


Financial plan for implementation of the project

3.1

Validity of the requested amount of project funding



3.2

Evaluation of cost estimate for implementation of the project



Average score by criterion 3


4.Availability of co-financing

4.1

Availability of co-financing (for every 3 % co-financing
1 point shall be set, with a maximum score of 9)



Average score by criterion 4


Final score (amount of average scores by evaluation criteria)


Strengths


Weaknesses


Recommended amount to finance the project


      Full name (if any) of the expert ___________________
Date of the expertize __________________

  Annex 12
to the Rules for organization
and conduct of the state scientific
and technical expertise
  Form

Summary conclusion of project expertise _______________________________


r/n

Name of evaluation criteria

Average score
(from 1 to 9)

Comments of the expert

expert 1

expert 2

1.





2.





3.





4.





5.





6.





7.





8.





Strengths



Weaknesses



Recommended amount to finance the project



Final score (amount of points by evaluation criteria)



      Organizer ___________________
Date of the expertise __________________