Allocation Of Research Funds Research Articles

For which diseases do broader value elements matter most? An evaluation across 20 ICER evidence reports.

BACKGROUND: U.S. value framework developers such as the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) use cost-effectiveness analysis to value new health care technologies. Often, these value assessment frameworks use a health system perspective without fully accounting for societal and broader benefits and costs of an intervention. Although there is ongoing debate about the most appropriate methods for including broader value elements in value assessment, it remains unclear whether the inclusion of these value elements is likely to affect the quantitative estimates of treatment value. OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in the relevance of broader value elements to cost-effectiveness analysis across diseases. METHODS: Thirty-two broader value elements (e.g., caregiver burden, health equity, real option value, productivity) not traditionally included in health technology assessments were identified through a targeted literature review. Evidence reports published by ICER between July 2017 and January 2020 were evaluated to identify which broader value elements were discussed as relevant to each disease in the report text. The study examined whether there were associations among ICER's discussion of broader value elements, rare disease status, treatment cost, estimated treatment cost-effectiveness, and ICER committee voting results for contextual considerations and additional benefits/disadvantages. RESULTS: The most commonly cited broader value element category in the ICER evidence reports was household and leisure (e.g., absenteeism from normal activities and caregiver burden). More value elements were cited for inherited retinal disease (19 elements) and sickle cell disease (18 elements) than for other diseases. Cardiovascular disease and diabetes had the fewest number of value elements cited (7 elements). Rare diseases were more likely to have broader value elements cited compared with nonrare diseases (15.9 vs. 11.5, P < 0.001). Treatments with higher (i.e., less favorable) incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were more likely to have a greater number of broader value elements cited (ρ = 0.625, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of broader value elements varied across diseases, with less cost-effective treatments more likely to have a higher number of relevant broader value elements. Inclusion of all relevant value elements in value assessments will more appropriately incentivize innovation and improve allocation of research funding. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. At the time of this study, Shafrin was employed by PRECISIONheor, a consultancy to the life sciences industry that received financial support from Novartis to conduct this study. Dennen, Pednekar, and Birch are employed by PRECISIONheor. Bhor was an employee of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation at the time this research was conducted and manuscript was developed and reports grants from Novartis, unrelated to this work. Kanter has served on scientific advisory boards and steering committees for and reports receiving consulting fees from Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation and is a site principal investigator on studies funded by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. Kantar also reports support from Sickle Cell Disease Association of America Inc. and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, unrelated to this work. Neumann reports advisory boards or consulting fees from Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation and PRECISIONheor, as well as advisory boards or consulting fees unrelated to this study from AbbVie, Amgen, Avexis, Bayer, Congressional Budget Office, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Precision Health Economics, Veritech, Vertex; funding from The CEA Registry Sponsors by various pharmaceutical and medical device companies; and grants from Amgen, Lundbeck, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, National Pharmaceutical Council, Alzheimer's Association, and the National Institutes for Health.

Addressing Australia's collaboration ‘problem’: Is there a Brave New World of innovation policy post COVID‐19?

In a post‐COVID‐19 world, innovation stimuli and well‐aligned policies will assume even greater importance as various sectors seek to recover lost ground and to generate new opportunities. Collaborative partnering in innovation research and development (R&D) between private industry and higher education has increasingly emerged over the last decade as a leading key performance indicator for government policy development, and higher education research funding allocations. Recalibration of R&D‐related policies and incentivisation will require careful consideration, with constructive lessons to be learned from outcomes over the last four decades. This paper presents findings from a new study of stakeholder perceptions as to the National Innovation and Science Agenda's impact on innovation partnerships, and synthesises outcomes from two prior studies. It then examines a newly proposed innovation policy framework, Stimulating Business Investment in Innovation (SBII), set against a background of the shifting mix of paradigms that have comprised Australian innovation policy over the last 40 years. It argues that, following the SBII, any proposed change of policy direction will face significant challenges in its implementation, requiring a fully committed and comprehensive embrace by Government of the new APS engagement framework and greater levels of deliberative democracy.

Bladder cancer research funding in Canada and the United States: A comparison between stakeholder priorities and resource allocation from 2017 to 2019.

422 Background: There is an increasing emphasis on patient-centered research to encourage cancer care that is responsive to patients' needs. Previously, the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Patient Survey Network (PSN) engaged patients and other key stakeholders and compiled a prioritized list of research questions in bladder cancer. However, it is uncertain whether these priorities have successfully guided subsequent resource allocation by funding agencies. The purpose of this study was to understand how bladder cancer research funding has been allocated in recent years and to determine whether funding patterns have aligned with patient and caregiver priorities. Methods: We investigated publicly available research databases online or contacted agencies directly to determine bladder cancer research fund allocation in Canada and the US from 2017 to 2019. Each funding competition and all funded projects were evaluated to assess whether they aligned with previously identified priority research areas. Trends in funding allocation were assessed and several key variables including country, year, agency focus, cancer stage, and funding amount were analyzed. Results: Fifteen agencies provided funding to bladder cancer research between 2017 and 2019, amounting to a total of $78,525,974 in funding for 298 projects across Canada and the US. Of this funding, $23,268,258 (30%) went towards projects addressing the stakeholder-identified high priority research questions, $15,575,064 (20%) went towards projects addressing lesser priority questions, and the remaining $39,682,652 (50%) funded projects addressing questions which did not align with previously identified stakeholder priorities. General agencies (non-bladder cancer-specific) funded more priority (high and lesser) projects than bladder cancer-specific agencies (p &lt; 0.001). Among projects addressing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, 36% of funding went to high priority areas, compared to 13% and 27% for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and metastatic bladder cancer, respectively. Among the top 10% of projects (n = 30) with the greatest funding amount (combined $43,249,792), 45% of the funding went to high priority areas, 21% went to lesser priority areas, and 34% went to non-priority areas. Conclusions: Of nearly $80,000,000 USD allocated to bladder cancer research in recent years, approximately half was allocated to projects addressing stakeholder-identified priority areas while half was allocated to projects that were not aligned with stakeholder priorities. More work is needed to ensure stronger alignment between stakeholder-identified priority areas and funding allocation in bladder cancer research.

Global Inequality in Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health

Humans globally have similar nutritional needs but face large differences in natural resource endowments and local food production. This study quantifies food system inequality across countries based on natural resource inputs, food/nutrient outputs, and nutrition/health outcomes, from 1970 to 2010. Animal source foods and overweight/obesity show rapid convergence while availability of selected micronutrients demonstrate slower convergence. However, all variables are more equally distributed than national income per capita, whose Gini coefficient declined from 0·71 to 0·65. Inequalities in total and animal-source dietary energy declined from 0·16 to 0·10 and 0·55 to 0·36, respectively. There was convergence in overweight/obesity prevalence from 0·39 to 0·27, while undernutrition and stunting became increasingly concentrated in a few high-burden countries. Characterizing cross-country inequalities in agricultural resources, foods, nutrients, and health can help identify critical opportunities for agriculture and food policies, as well as prioritize research objectives and funding allocation for the coming decade.

Optimizing research funding allocation for marine sciences in the new era

As an important part of earth sciences, marine sciences are closely related to economic and social development, marine security, and global change. They are a source of knowledge for earth system sciences, an important basis for sustainable development, and underpin strategies of maritime power. This paper summarizes trends in the development of marine sciences and their main challenges in China. It is important to establish a sound subdiscipline of marine sciences to carry out original work, to obtain basic theoretical data, and to innovate for future development. The paper describes the trends in marine science funding allocation, and details some of the leading national basic marine science research around the world to provide context for the development of marine sciences in China. The paper reviews the succession process of basic research funding allocation. The discipline application code system of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), as the important framework of NSFC funding, determines the development of marine science research. It must be continuously updated and developed in accordance with the rules of development and the requirements of social services. Accurately determining the application codes is essential for the NSFC to allocate funding appropriately. In the 1980s and 1990s, the marine sciences were divided into eight subdisciplines. In 2008, the NSFC carried out a large-scale revision, and the marine sciences were divided into the current 11 subdisciplines. The paper introduces a new application code system for marine sciences and describes its development process. In the last ten years, marine sciences have developed rapidly, and the previous application codes could not adapt to the current development and trends in marine science and technology. Under the unified deployment and guidance of the Department of Earth Sciences of the NSFC, the Oceanography Group launched a systematic demonstration and overall redesign of the application codes of marine sciences in 2018. The aim was to better reflect the systematization, completeness, and progressiveness of the marine sciences system in the new era, to guide the direction of marine science research, and to promote the interdisciplinary, balanced, and coordinated development of marine sciences. Combining “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches, the group further analyzed the trends in the development of marine science research and carried out a systematic critical review. Considering the current situation and the challenges in achieving the coordinated development of marine science and technology and its social impacts, the group proposed a new version of the system comprising 15 application codes, covering three directions of “Branch Discipline”, “Supporting Technology”, and “Development Field”. “Branch Discipline” comprises six codes: D0601 Physical oceanography, D0602 marine chemistry, D0603 marine geology and geophysics, D0604 biological oceanography and marine biological resources, D0605 marine ecology and environmental science, and D0606 estuarine and coastal science. “Supporting Technology” comprises three codes: D0607 Marine remote sensing, D0608 marine physics, and observation and detection technology, and D0609 marine data science and information system. “Development Field” comprises six codes: D0610 Marine system and global change, D0611 marine engineering and environmental effects, D0612 marine disasters, and disaster prevention and mitigation, D0613 marine energy and resources, D0614 coordinated sea and land development, and sustainable development, and D0615 polar science. The updated system is forward-looking, coordinated, logical, and consistent, and better supports China’s basic marine science and major national requirements. Last but not least, the paper describes the Shiptime Sharing Project to support the Open Cruise Program, as well as an international cooperation network established by the NSFC. The trends in the development of these projects and future prospects are also discussed. The revision of the application codes has comprehensively organized funding for marine sciences in the new era. The new codes specify directions for the development of marine technology, and provide a means for the implementation of the national marine strategy through funding allocation. Basic marine scientific research will be better served by this optimized NSFC marine funding allocation system.

The Research Excellence Framework 2014, journal ratings and the marginalisation of heterodox economics

Abstract The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is the main research assessment for universities in the UK. It informs university league tables and the allocation of government research funding. This paper analyses the evaluations of the REF 2014 for Economics, Business, Politics and History. First, we analyse from which journals articles have been submitted; second, to what extent journal ratings and journal impact factors predict the REF’s evaluations; third, how many articles from heterodox economics journals have been submitted. We find that a small group of journals dominate the outputs submitted. Journal ratings and impact factors explain 80% of the variation in the output evaluations for Economics. These values are lower but still substantial for other disciplines. Few papers from heterodox economics journals were submitted to Economics. Overall, the REF in its present form marginalises heterodox economics, pushes it out of the discipline and endangers pluralism in economics research.

Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019

ObjectiveAuthorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last...

Revealing the Pictures of Research Culture In Vietnamese Higher Education Institutions

This article aims to reveal the features of research culture in Vietnamese universities, through various indicators. It shows that among factors impacting the formation of research culture in Vietnamese universities are state-related ones, including policies, regulations, norms and traditions for university research. The state-related factors have contributed to bettering the qualifications of lecturers, recognizing faculty’s research works with financial and non-financial rewards, strengthening the cooperation between universities with external research partners, and increasing the number of publications. Yet, at the same time, different problems stem from the existence of some state-related factors including the nation’s tradition of spending less on higher education than on basic education and less on universities than on research institutes, the lack of autonomy among universities, the almost ultimate power of the university rector, and the use of the historically-negotiated recurrent approach for allocating research funding to universities. Given the fact that Vietnam’s higher education is highly regulated by the state, changes to research culture in universities must accompany changes to the state-related factors believed to influence the formation of research culture.

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

Participatory budgeting for research funding decisions

This paper argues that funding decisions about scientific research should be made using participatory budgeting public engagement methods, to support publicly-funded research translation into evidence-based policymaking, given evident public support. This would reflect international shifts toward public participation in governance and respond to the need for changes in research funding policies, evidenced in studies showing how research funding allocations are inefficient or inequitable. Involving consumers in decision making is an established practice in health research, while experiments involving the public in prioritising between research proposals have promising results. Furthering such methods and moving towards participatory budgeting for research funding would further the shift towards participatory governance and public engagement with science. However, for participatory budgeting to support evidence-based policy by evidencing public support, who is participating is an important consideration. Upstream research does not yet have clear consumers for applying stakeholder participation methods established in health research. Moreover, civic engagement differs from consumer engagement in promoting democratic ideals. Legitimacy for public funding and policy decisions depends on a diversity of public participants in decision-making processes, reflecting broader society rather than a consumer group.

Formal Research Training – An Essential Aspect for Surgical Residency?

Formal Research Training – An Essential Aspect for Surgical Residency?

The economic value of research in managing invasive hydrilla in Florida public lakes

Weber MA, Wainger LA, Harms NE, Nesslage GM. 2020. The economic value of research in managing invasive hydrilla in Florida public lakes. Lake Reserv Manage. XX:XX–XX. Decisions on how to allocate research funds can be informed by evaluating the benefits of research, yet past spending is rarely analyzed to gain insights for effective research allocation. We used a case study to evaluate whether research into nonnative invasive plants improved management of herbicide-resistant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes (KCOL), Florida, USA. We applied a retrospective benefit–cost analysis to quantify the net economic benefits of invasive control informed by government-supported research, relative to a scenario without research funding. Using conservative assumptions, we estimated net benefits of 11 yr of research (1999–2009) and 5 yr of improved hydrilla management as $19.5 million (2017 dollars) with a benefit–cost ratio of 3.8, including avoided ecosystem service losses to angler and nonangler lake users. These benefits were about 2.2 times the annual value of recreational fishing in the KCOL. Sensitivity analysis indicated that positive net benefits were generally robust to uncertainty regarding the hydrilla intrinsic growth rate and treatment costs in the absence of research-informed protocols. We have likely underestimated research benefits because we lumped costs from multiple programs and did not measure benefits accruing to nonusers of lakes. To enable future retrospective economic analyses, we suggest some improvements in record keeping. Our findings of positive net benefits of research may be representative of cases where relatively modest research investment in invasive species control is likely to protect widely appreciated ecosystem services.

The state of nursing research from 2000 to 2019: A global analysis.

This study aims to present a general bibliometric overview of the development status of global nursing research from 2000 to 2019. A longitudinal bibliometric analysis of nursing research was conducted. Nursing research publications (N=88,665) were obtained from Web of Science. Bibliometric method was used to map the output and citation impact trends of countries/regions, institutions, disciplines, and journals and analyse theresearch collaboration among countries/regions and institutions. The global paper output in nursing research increased steadily over the past two decades and it varied in different countries/regions with the USA being far ahead of the others. The paper output and cross-border collaboration are mainly distributed in several developed countries like the USA, the UK, Australia, and Canada. The University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, University of Toronto, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have high academic influence in the field of nursing. Increasing attention from academic fields has been paid to research on nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing is the most prolific and most cited journal in nursing field. Nursing research has developed steadily over the last two decades. Both the scientific output and research collaboration are disproportionally distributed between high-income countries/regions and low- and middle-income countries/regions. Most research and collaboration have taken place in a few developed countries across North America, Europe, and Oceania. The study highlighted the need for policy makers and funding agencies, especially those from low- and middle-income countries/regions, to allocate research funding that supports the nursing higher education and international cooperation so as to promote the development of high-quality nursing research in those countries/regions. At the same time, researchers from non-English-speaking countries/regions should attach more importance to publishing papers in English, strengthening the academic exchanges with international nursing colleagues and better integrating into the international academic community.

Optimal Allocation of Research Funds under a Budget Constraint.

Purpose. Health economic evaluations that include the expected value of sample information support implementation decisions as well as decisions about further research. However, just as decision makers must consider portfolios of implementation spending, they must also identify the optimal portfolio of research investments. Methods. Under a fixed research budget, a decision maker determines which studies to fund; additional budget allocated to one study to increase the study sample size implies less budget available to collect information to reduce decision uncertainty in other implementation decisions. We employ a budget-constrained portfolio optimization framework in which the decisions are whether to invest in a study and at what sample size. The objective is to maximize the sum of the studies' population expected net benefit of sampling (ENBS). We show how to determine the optimal research portfolio and study-specific levels of investment. We demonstrate our framework with a stylized example to illustrate solution features and a real-world application using 6 published cost-effectiveness analyses. Results. Among the studies selected for nonzero investment, the optimal sample size occurs at the point at which the marginal population ENBS divided by the marginal cost of additional sampling is the same for all studies. Compared with standard ENBS optimization without a research budget constraint, optimal budget-constrained sample sizes are typically smaller but allow more studies to be funded. Conclusions. The budget constraint for research studies directly implies that the optimal sample size for additional research is not the point at which the ENBS is maximized for individual studies. A portfolio optimization approach can yield higher total ENBS. Ultimately, there is a maximum willingness to pay for incremental information that determines optimal sample sizes.

Research Productivity Index (RPI): a new metric for measuring universities’ research productivity

Purpose This paper aims to propose a new metric, called the Research Productivity Index (RPI), which can be used to measure universities’ research productivity and benchmark them accordingly at both national and global levels. Design/methodology/approach The paper used a partial-factor productivity measurement as the basis to develop RPI, which considers the ratio of total weighted publications (outputs) to the used input (affiliated researchers). To demonstrate the applicability of the RPI, data were collected from Scopus to assess the research productivity of a university in the UAE, as an example. The methodological steps (algorithm) were demonstrated using mathematical and query functions to extract the required data from the Scopus data set and then compute the RPI value. Findings A new effective and objective metric was developed for measuring universities’ research productivity. Practical Implications This paper suggests that Scopus could use RPI as a metric for measuring the research productivity of each university. RPI can be used by university administrators and government decision-makers to evaluate and rank/benchmark institutions’ research productivity. They can consequently make more effective decisions with regard to the efficient allocation of research budgets and funding. Originality/value This paper distinguishes between measuring research impact and research productivity. It proposes RPI for measuring the latter, whereas most existing metrics measure the former. RPI is an objective measurement, as it is calculated based on a constant period of time, three years, and takes into consideration the university size (i.e. affiliated researchers) in addition to the quality and quantity (total) of research outcomes.

The Contribution of Rat Studies to Current Knowledge of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From Citation Analysis.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most severe depression type and one of the leading causes of morbidity worldwide. Animal models are widely used to understand MDD etiology, pathogenesis, and treatment, but the efficacy of this research for patients has barely been systematically evaluated. Such evaluation is important given the resource consumption and ethical concerns incurred by animal use. We used the citation tracking facilities within Web of Science and Scopus to locate citations of original research papers on rats related to MDD published prior to 2013—to allow adequate time for citations—identified in PubMed and Scopus by relevant search terms. Resulting citations were thematically coded in eight categories, and descriptive statistics were calculated. 178 publications describing relevant rat studies were identified. They were cited 8,712 times. More than half (4,633) of their citations were by other animal studies. 794 (less than 10%) were by human medical papers. Citation analysis indicates that rat model research has contributed very little to the contemporary clinical understanding of MDD. This suggests a misuse of limited funding hence supporting a change in allocation of research and development funds targeting this disorder to maximise benefits for patients.

The Mapping of Indigenous Knowledge of People at 3T (Frontier, Outermost, and Least Developed) Regions as an Ethnoscience Study

This research intended to map indigenous knowledge of people in the frontier, outermost, and least developed regions or generally referred to as 3T (Terdepan/Frontier, Terluar/Outermost, Tertinggal/Least Developed) regions. This research employed a qualitative research approach through a descriptive method in which an experimental method was performed for mapping the indigenous knowledge. The target mapping area was Papua, Aceh, West Kalimantan, and East Nusa Tenggara. Geographical position, research funding, and time allocation became the main considerations in selecting these areas. The four 3T regions are said to be the most appropriate as the locals remain to believe and apply their indigenous knowledge. The mapping results found that several indigenous knowledge is potentially tested scientifically in labs, they are Bakar Batu, Tanam Sasi, and Honai in Papua; Rumoh Aceh and Batu Nisan in Aceh; Berjuluk Baatutuk and Betang Radang in West Kalimantan; and Ebang and Welang in East Nusa Tenggara. There are numerous traditions found in the research location, yet those that do not have met the criteria of scientific objects, such as myths and legends, were not included. The mapping results were followed by confirming the opinions of prospective science teachers obtained by 85 % of 54 students who were interested in this finding as a study of ethnocentric The research concluded that the indigenous knowledge of people in 3T regions are unique and required to be further examined scientifically and could be reviewed as a source for Ethnoscience course. This research recommendation is that in science learning, especially in the 3T region should pay attention to efforts to change traditional knowledge into scientific knowledge through integrating the mapping of indigenous knowledge as the content of ethnoscience.

Changing research on research evaluation: A critical literature review to revisit the agenda

Abstract The current range and volume of research evaluation-related literature is extensive and incorporates scholarly and policy/practice-related perspectives. This reflects academic and practical interest over many decades and trails the changing funding and reputational modalities for universities, namely increased selectivity applied to institutional research funding streams and the perceived importance of university rankings and other reputational devices. To make sense of this highly diverse body of literature, we undertake a critical review of over 350 works constituting, in our view, the ‘state-of-the-art’ on institutional performance-based research evaluation arrangements (PREAs). We focus on PREAs because they are becoming the predominant means world-wide to allocate research funds and accrue reputation for universities. We highlight the themes addressed in the literature and offer critical commentary on the balance of scholarly and policy/practice-related orientations. We then reflect on five limitations to the state-of-the-art and propose a new agenda, and a change of perspective, to progress this area of research in future studies.

Knowledge gaps in organic research: understanding interactions of cover crops and tillage for weed control and soil health

Organic crop systems rely on tillage as the primary means to control weeds, but negative impacts of tillage may prevent farmers from achieving the potential soil health benefits of organic management. Cover crops have been suggested as a solution for overcoming this tillage trade-off directly by enhancing soil health and indirectly by providing weed control, thus reducing the need for tillage. In order to characterize the state of published research on the effects of cover crops on weed control and soil health in organic crop systems, we conducted a formal literature search on this topic and identified 116 relevant studies which were subsequently categorized by research focus, management strategy, and variables measured. We found 83 studies examined effects of cover crops on weed control and 33 studies examined effects of cover crops on soil health, but only 10 of the studies reported on both weed control and soil health effects. The lack of integrated studies examining both weed control and soil health responses to management highlights a research gap not sufficiently addressed by researchers, even though it is a topic of great interest to many organic farmers. A majority of studies (79) included reduced or no-till treatments, and annual grasses, clover, and vetch species were the most common cover crops. Assessments of aboveground biomass were the most common weed control measurements, while soil organic matter was the most common soil health measurement. Recommendations for future research needs include the following: more integrated assessments of the effects of cover crops on both soil health and weed control under varying tillage regimes; greater effort to characterize the soil health impacts of cover crop systems utilizing newly developed soil health indicators including soil physical parameters; long-term studies to assess dynamic soil health responses as well as perennial weed pressure (particularly in reduced and no-till organic systems); and greater allocation of research funding to regions outside of North America and Europe.

EDUCATION AS BASIS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The main objective of the article is to present the level of education in some selected countries, and to explain how education determines a sustainable growth. Education is the main factor to achieve both economic and employment growth. At the same time, education plays an important role for a sustainable improvement of the standard of living in the world. Supporting education is also one of the aims of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Goal 4), but education appears in a number of other SDG targets too. The countries that allocate the most capital for education are Norway, Denmark, Sweden, United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland (over 6.7% of GDP). The share of GDP allocated for education in Romania is only 2.7. This directly affects both the physical conditions for carrying out educational and research activities in school units and the qualitative level of the educational act. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between the real GDP/capita (VAR01) and share of GDP for education (VAR02) for our study is 0.694, which again underlines the close correlation between the allocation of funds for education and research and the level of development from a country. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between supporting education from GDP and top 100 universities is relatively low (r = 0.287), reflecting an insufficient correlation between the two variables. As a result, the education system in a country must be adjusted and supported both financially and through the adoption of viable policy decisions that will ensure increased performance in the educational system.