Is the Distribution of Research Grants Sustainable? An Empirical Study of Grant Assessment

Financing of basic research is an important task in supporting research activities and development of dynamically advancing interdisciplinary fields of science. A significant challenge in this aspect is the correct distribution of limited finances sustainably. In this paper, we present an empirical study related to National Science Centre (NSC), which is the main government agency in Poland. NSC funds projects in Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Life Sciences and Physical Sciences and Engineering. In this work, we analyse three primary funding schemes of NSC, which are called PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. Each of theses programms is asigned to another group of scientists from beginners to experts. Projects’ data concerning PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS schemes are collected from NSC projects database (only completed projects) and proccessed for further investigation. Effectiveness and sustainability of projects implemented in scientific fields are analysed concerning criteria such as the total number of book publications, papers, amount of grants and IF points. The results obtained are presented regarding scientific disciplines and panels. Prevailingly, the PRELUDIUM scheme exhibits better results in the majority of criteria and panels.


Introduction
The system of financing science in Poland has changed in recent years, mainly due to the reform introduced in 2010 [1,2]. Instead of one central institution, which is involved in financing research (formerly the Ministry of Science and Higher Education), supporting the research is dealt with by two statutorily created government agencies, the National Science Centre and the National Centre for Research and Development, sharing financing basic and applied research. Creators of the Polish reform while working on regulations quite openly declared their inspiration with solutions functioning all over the world.
From the beginning of its activity, the NSC has assumed that there is no such area that is beyond its interest, except only the scope of state defence and security, which results from statutory solutions. It must of course be remembered that in the system of financing science there is a second executive agency, namely the National Centre for Research and Development, covering applied research. Significant areas of financing, including the National Humanities Development Program or financing of large research infrastructure, remain under the responsibility of the Ministry of Science and Education. Funds for science are also allocated by the Foundation for Polish Science, as well asfar too small the economy [3].
In Europe, research funding is provided by the independent European Research Council (ERC). The European Research Council, unlike the Polish National Science Centre, deals with the financing of any type of scientific research, regardless of whether it is basic or applied [4]. The ERC offers mainly two types of programs under which scientists can apply for money for research: Starting Grants and Advanced Grants. Under the former, funding of up to e 2 million is available for scientists who have obtained a doctorate in the period from 2 to 12 years before entering the competition. Like the National Science Centre, the ERC does not apply here the age criterion: funding may be applied for persons of all ages, provided that the criterion of time elapsed since obtaining the PhD degree. The Advanced Grants program, on the other hand, finances projects conducted by experienced researchers. The most important criterion for the evaluation of grant applications by ERC experts is excellence, or excellence achieved through competition. Research proposals submitted in the framework of ERC competitions should be innovative, addressing relevant issues and providing an opportunity for breakthrough discoveries with well-planned research projects.
The National Science Foundation is an U.S. government agency dedicated exclusively to financing basic research. The National Science Foundation offers dozens of grant programs for scientists at every level of development. Substantive evaluation of applications is carried out in the NSF in a similar way as in the ERC and in the Polish National Science Centre. The applications are evaluated by teams of experts [5].
On the basis of the two examples quoted above, it can be seen that regardless of the type of research financed or the range of disciplines in which the funds can be applied for, the basic basis for the submission of the best known models of financing science is always the same. Grant applications are to receive the best, and which projects are the best decide the scientists themselves. [6].
Bibliometrics is a tool that allows a rational and strictly measurable assessment of the published scientific output. It can be defined as a set of methods mathematical and statistical methods used to assess the impact of individual scientific publications, journals, as well as authors. These indicators are used to assess the quality of the scientific journal, the parametric evaluation of scientific institutions, as well as to evaluate the scientific output of the employee. The following measures are most popular in Poland [7]:

1.
Citation Index-different kinds of indicators showing how many times and by whom a given publication has been quoted. The most valuable publications are those quoted only by foreign authors.

2.
Impact Factor-referred to as the "measure of impact" of scientific journals. So there's the prestige index of a given journal. Often used also as a so-called "prestige indicator". The total IF for assessing the scientific output of individuals.

3.
Hirsch Index-assessed against the scientific output of the individual researcher as being capable of publishing well-quoted scientific papers. Defined as the number "h" of scientific papers, each of which is quoted "h" times. 4.
The Ministry of Science and Higher Education score-an indicator to evaluate both scientific entities and the entire output of a single researcher. It can be used both quantitatively as well as qualitatively. Often required in the process of doctoral studies and obtaining habilitation.
With an increasing number of applications for grants, research projects, consortia and large research networks, more and more time is taken up by researchers to evaluate and review written proposals. by other researchers. Instead of the traditional quality assessment of studies using the classic peer review method, which is quite expensive and time-consuming, there is more and more often used hasty analyses based on bibliometric data. Differences in the nature of bibliometric data concerning representatives of different fields of science [8] may be important in the work of interdisciplinary panels of the National Science Centre or the Foundation for Polish Science. During the work of the panel it would be optimal to use only factual expert opinions and refrain from direct comparison of bibliometric indicators. Otherwise, when bibliometric data is considered as a supporting argument, the differences in publication and citation in different fields of science should be taken into account. Bibliometric indices depend on the specificities of individual scientific disciplines. Often, there are differences even within a single discipline. In order to be able to interpret the bibliometric indicators characterising a particular researcher's work prudently, a profound knowledge of a particular field of knowledge is necessary. When comparing such data for two scientists working in the same specialty, it is worthwhile to compare the data scaled per researcher's head, e.g. the number of quotations divided by the average number of authors of one work of each scientist [9].
The scoring of the scientific journals of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education (list A) was based solely on the Impact Factor (IF) of the Web of Science database [10]. Journals are classified within a given science based on the Journal Citation Report (JCR) from 2010. However, experience shows that the IF factor is not an optimal measure of the journals' value. One reason is the uneven level of Philadelphia list journals and the fact that citations are counted the same regardless of the quality of the journal in which they appear. It seems that a much better indicator than IF of the quality of a scientific journal is the Eigenfactor Article Infuence Score (AIS). It is based on an idea used in an Internet search engine Google, which assesses the importance of the parties online with information on the subject [11,12]. Google's ingenious algorithm is to create a graph showing the connection between all the sites on the Internet, construct an appropriate connection matrix and find its dominant own vector, whose components characterize the value of the site.
It is also important to mention the CiteScore (CS) factor, which is competitive with the Impact Factor (IF). CiteScore (CS) is calculated for magazines that are indexed in the Scopus database, which is owned by Elsevier [13]. Five basic types of peer-reviewed texts that are indexed to Scopus are used to calculate CiteScore, i.e., scientific articles, reviews, conference reports, book chapters, and articles that are set date descriptions [14]. In the case of CiteScore, it is calculated for a given year by dividing the number of quotations for the last four years with publications published at that time by the number of those publications. For the Impact Factor (IF), 2 years are taken into account. They also differ in databases and the number of indexed journals.
The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) and SNIP (Source Normalized Impact Paper) are also among the most popular factors [15]. The first of these SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is also like the CiteScore factor an alternative to the Impact Factor (IF) [16,17]. It was created by SCImago, a team of researchers from the Spanish National Scientific Council and Spanish universities. The SJR is calculated from the indexed journals in the Scopus database. The factor is the quotient of the average number of citations for the last three years with the number of documents indexed over the same three-year period, where the value of citations is changed by the SJR index of the journals from which the citations originate [18].
SNIP measures the contextual impact of a citation by assigning a value to it depending on the total number of cites in a given field of knowledge. The number of articles quoting a given journal is taken into account in relation to the number of items in the lists of used literature (references) of these articles [19]. These references form the context of the citation. In those disciplines where quotations are not numerous and the list of literature contains only a few items, a single citation becomes more valuable. The opposite is true in areas with very high citation rates, where lists of literature containing more than 300 items are quite common. Then a single citation loses its value [20].
Bibliometrics can therefore only serve as an auxiliary function for the initial selection of proposals. Often the correlation between the number of quotations of an article, IF of the journal in which it was published, and its scientific value is insignificant. It is often better to take into account the actual number of citations, and to use a more objective AIS to evaluate the journal. [21].

National Science Centre
NSC (National Science Centre) is a state executive agency based in Cracow (Poland), that was established on the basis of the Act of 30 April 2010 about the National Science Centre [22]. It was officially opened on 4 March 2011. The National Science Centre has been established to finance basic research, i.e., research aimed at seeking answers to fundamental questions about of man and the surrounding reality, as well as acquiring knowledge about the foundations of phenomena and observed facts. The NSC also covers the costs of research related to culture and learning about the past in its broadest sense [23]. The objective of the NSC is to support research activities in basic research, i.e., empirical or theoretical work aimed primarily at acquiring new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without any direct commercial application in mind. NSC finances, among others, research projects in the field of basic research. The tasks of the NSC are following [22]: Financing of fundamental research carried out in the form of: • research projects, including financing the purchase or manufacture of scientific and research equipment necessary for the implementation of these projects, • research projects not subject to co-financing from foreign funds within the framework of international programs or initiatives announced in bilateral or multilateral cooperation or research projects carried out with the use of large international research facilities by Polish research teams, • research projects carried out by young scientists within the meaning of Article 360(2) of the Act of 20 July 2018-Law on higher education and science, including those aimed at creating a unique scientific workshop or establishing a new scientific team, • doctoral scholarships and internships after obtaining the academic PhD degree (doctor's degree), • research projects for experienced researchers at the frontier of research, including interdisciplinary research, relevant to scientific advancement, beyond the state of the art, which may result in scientific discoveries;

2.
Financing of research activities other than those referred to in point 1, which do not fall within the scope of the research funded by the National Centre for Research and Development; 3.
Supervision over the implementation of scientific research; 4.
International cooperation in financing fundamental research activities; 5.
Disseminating information on competitions announced by the Centre to the scientific community; 6.
Inspiring and monitoring fundamental research funding from outside of the state budget; 7.
Performance of other tasks commissioned by the Minister, important for the development of basic research, including the development of research programmes important for national culture, while ensuring financial resources for the implementation of these tasks; 8.
Financing of the National Science Centre prize awarded in accordance with the regulations defined by the Council and approved by the Minister.
Every 3 months NSC announces at least one of the series of competitions for research projects, that also include financing the purchase or manufacture of scientific and research equipment necessary to carry out these projects. Types of competitions include PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS [22].

The OPUS Competition
The OPUS Competition, organized by the National Centre of Science, is a competition for research projects for all scientists, regardless of their degree, and includes the possibility of financing the purchase or manufacture of scientific and technical equipment necessary for the implementation of these projects. Research projects may be implemented individually by a project manager or by a research team consisting of a project manager and any number of contractors. Projects are assessed by the following criteria: the scientific achievements of the project leader, the scientific level of the planned activities, the innovative character of the project and its impact on the development of the scientific discipline, as well as the budget allocated to the project. The duration of the project participating in the competition should be 12, 24 or 36 months, and the cost of purchasing a single scientific research apparatus cannot exceed 500,000 PLN for ST and NZ and 150,000 PLN for HS. Applications to take part in the competition are accepted twice a year (March-June and September-December).

The PRELUDIUM Competition
The PRELUDIUM Competition, organized by the National Centre of Science, is a competition for research projects designed for people who start their scientific careers, i.e., do not have a PhD degree. The applicant does not have to be a student of doctoral studies, and the grant does not have to be connected with the prepared doctoral thesis. Research projects may be implemented by up to 3 contractors, among which there may be only one independent research worker (promoter or scientific tutor). Projects are evaluated by the following criteria: the scientific achievements of the project leader and the supervisor, the scientific level of the planned activities, the innovative character of the project and its impact on the scientific career development of the project leader. The duration of the project participating in the competition should be 12, 24 or 36 months, and the cost of funding may not exceed 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000, depending on the duration of the project and the expenditure on equipment may not exceed 30% of the amount of funds for the implementation of the project applied for. The beneficiary of these funds may not be a scientific guardian or a promoter, and obtaining a doctoral degree is not tantamount to completing the project. Applications to take part in the competition are accepted twice a year (March-June and September-December).
The PRELUDIUM deserves special attention because it is especially addressed to young researchers and therefore greatly facilitates their scientific career development.

The SONATA Competition
The SONATA Competition, organized by the National Science Centre, is a competition for research projects, designed for people with a PhD degree, obtained up to 5 years before the year of application. The aim of the competition is to support the project manager in conducting innovative scientific research of basic character using modern equipment and/or original methodological solutions. Within a research project there can be only one independent research workers with a habilitation degree or a scientific title, provided that they are not employed in the unit that implements the project. The projects are evaluated by following criteria: the scientific achievements of the project leader, the scientific level of the planned activities, the innovative character of the project and its impact on the development of the scientific discipline and the involvement of the entity in which the project will be implemented. The duration of the project participating in the competition should be 12, 24 or 36 months, and the total cost of equipment purchase may not exceed 500,000 PLN for ST and NZ and 150,000 PLN for HS. There are no restrictions imposed as to the upper limit of funding for one project. Applications to take part in the competition are accepted twice a year (March-June and September-December).

Domains and Panels for Qualification and Evaluation of Projects
The Council of the NSC adopted as the basis for the process of qualification and evaluation of research projects the division into 25 panels (disciplines or groups of disciplines), thematically covering the entire area of research, in three science groups [22]: • HS-Humanities, Social Sciences and the Arts (6 panels: HS1-HS6); • ST-Science and Technology (10 panels: ST1-ST10); • NZ-Life Sciences (9 panels: NZ1-NZ9).
Most panels in each group combine several disciplines [24]. The names of the panels and the areas they cover are presented in the Tables 1-3.

HS4
Unit, institutions, markets economics, finance, management, demography, social and economic geography, urban planning

HS5
Law, policy sciences, public policies law, policy sciences, regional and social policy

HS6
Man and social life psychology, pedagogy, sociology The aim of this paper was to compare of the profit generated by the projects within the different panels for PRELUDIUM, OPUS and SONATA.

Data and Methods
The plan of this research includes the following stages:

1.
Data collection for project implementation.
• Selection of types of NSC competitions for research.

•
Collection of data on projects implemented within the framework of selected competitions.

•
Correction of erroneous data and their preparation for analysis.
• Examining the effectiveness of projects implemented within the framework of specific calls for proposals and scientific fields.

•
Recording the obtained results in the form of tables and column charts.

Dataset
In this analysis, the Polish dataset from the NSC's project database is used, that is available on website of NSC [22]. Data of projects for competition PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS for science group ST, NZ and HS was collected.
Following data was obtained for each project: Impact Factor is the most recognizable factor in the international scientific community. It is a measure of the frequency with which an average article from a given journal was quoted in a given year. Impact Factor helps to assess the relevance of a journal, especially when compared to other journals in the same field, because IF strongly prefers English language magazines and non-humanistic sciences. To calculate IF for a journal for a given year, it is necessary to count the number of quotes from articles in that journal that have appeared in that year, and then divide this value by the sum of the articles published in that journal in the previous two years.
Impact Factor was introduced in the 1950s and 1960s by Eugene Garfield, assistant librarian at Johns Hopkins University, to assist in the selection of journal subscriptions [25][26][27]. E. Garfield established the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) in 1960, the first company to benefit from providing access to scientific information, initially by publishing weekly "Current Contents" and the annual "Science Citation Index". In 1992, the Thomson Group purchased ISI and created Web of Science, a Web of Science networked database integration. In 2012, Reuters merged with Thomson Reuters to form Thomson Reuters, a global corporation. IF was calculated and published by Thomson Reuters, that indexed more than 11,000 journals every year and published "Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports". Impact Factor is currently being established by Thomson Scientific (Institute of Scientific Information in Philadelphia). This information is given by the "Journal Citation Reports" (JCR) database, that provides information about the world's leading journals [28,29].

Limitations of the Study
Information was collected on 4597 projects that had been started in the 2011-2016 period and had been finished in the 2012-2018 period. Only the data of the projects with a settled status was used. The data was collected on 2 August 2019. Table 4 presents the number of projects that were financed under the competitions: PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS, by area: ST, NZ and HS and their panels. The largest number of projects, as many as 236 were financed in the HS4 panel for the OPUS competition, and the smallest number, i.e., only 4 were financed in the NZ6 panel for the SONATA competition. The table also presents the individual amounts in relation to panels and types of competitions. In total, the largest number of projects-896-were submitted for the OPUS competition in the ST field, and the smallest-119 for the SONATA competition in the NZ field.

Data Preprocessing
To complete the data collection task, the script written in Python language was used, which enabled automatic saving of the data to xlsx file. A preliminary analysis of the data revealed potentially wrong IF values for 254 projects (5.53% of all projects analysed). These values were verified from the "Journal Citation Reports" [30] (access date 28 September 2019). The most common errors found were: • attributing the IF to articles that did not have it, • omitting the dot in the IF value, • entering a journal's scores instead of its IF, • giving the IF from the wrong year.
The collected and corrected data for the planned research in the form of summary statements obtained using pivot tables in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet are presented in the following tables.
Tables 5-7 show the parameters used for ST, NZ and HS respectively, broken down by type of competition: PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS, and panel types and their total value. Meaning of the abbreviations used in headline of these tables is included in Table 8. Two parameters used deserve special attention-granted amount and total IF (number of Impact Factor), which were the basis for calculating all coefficients calculated in the research.    Granted amount Total granted amount of projects per panel 5 Apparat. Cost Total cost of apparature of projects per panel 6 Min. Amount Minimum granted amount of project per panel 7 Max. Amount Maximum granted amount of project per panel 8 Total IF Total sum of IF points of projects per panel 9 Articles with IF Total number of articles with IF points of projects per panel The first criterion applied by us, i.e., the total IF value of publications produced with the support of research grants per 1 million PLN of the value of these grants (IF / 1 million PLN), is a measure of the evaluation of the effectiveness of research projects called Wroclaw Effectiveness Indicator for Grants (WEIG). WEIG measures the hypothetical IF value of publications related to an investment of 1 million PLN in a given grant type, researcher-manager or field of science. This measure makes it possible to assess changes in effectiveness over time, compare individual grants, grant managers, research units, as well as areas and disciplines, including defined panels used by the National Science Centre.
The publicly available WEIG values for individual panels and competitions, or even for individual completed projects, may be important information for all project managers to enable them to place their own project against other similar projects (for example, in the same panel and competition type). WEIG can be used to compare between types of competitions as well as in an international context, i.e., the effectiveness of European grants, the effectiveness of Polish research compared to research supported by foreign agencies such as NSF (USA), DFG (Germany), EPSRC (UK), GACR (Czech Republic) or the EU. It is even possible to compare WEIG indicators for individual NSC grant panels with ERC (European Research Council) grants, as both agencies use the same panels. The WEIG could also be used to assess the implementation of completed projects, which already has an impact on the assessment of subsequent applications from a given manager [31].
Cost criteria: • Cost of equipment per project; • Duration of the project in months; • Grant amount allocated to the project.

Results
The results obtained are organized in three sections: • Analysis of profit criteria per 1 million PLN of the grant amount allocated to projects; • Analysis of profit criteria per 1 million PLN of the grant amount spent on the purchase or manufacture of equipment necessary for the implementation of projects; • Analysis of cost criteria for implemented projects.
The division into the above sections enables a broad analysis thanks to three different, independent views of the problem. This way of analysis allows for a reliable assessment of sustainability in the scope of the competitions and fields in question, because we can only talk about sustainability if it is proportionate in many important aspects. The sustainability assessment algorithm for scientific projects presented in this article is easy, intuitive and applicable also taking into account other criteria that will be relevant in this case.

Analysis of Profit Criteria Per 1 Million PLN of the Grant Amount Allocated to Projects
Indicators, the values of which are obtained by calculating what proportion of a certain amount of funding is obtained or worked out, are one of the more popular and authoritative ways of assessing effectiveness and development in a given field. They make it possible to objectively assess the relationship between the specified values, to assess the economic situation in the case in question and to anticipate future changes. Thanks to the assessment of the size of the profit criteria for projects per 1 million PLN allocated by the NSC for projects, it is possible to determine which projects generate the highest profits, i.e., the most and the least effective. After comparing the obtained values, we have the opportunity to assess which projects have made the best use of the received co-financing amount. The review of these results makes it possible to determine whether the degree of funding for projects under various competitions and fields is balanced, or whether there are situations where projects representing specific fields of science are insufficiently funded compared to other fields of science. The importance of such a cross-cutting assessment of the economic performance of projects is high, as catching certain distortions in this area and intervening early may prevent negligence in unduly undervalued scientific fields and types of competitions. This, in turn, may contribute to increasing the efficiency and productivity of research teams representing given fields of science and groups of scientists, which has a positive impact on the development of science, innovation and economy in a given country.
We have selected 6 profit criteria for this section of research. These are listed below. Criteria analysed: The values of these criteria and the amounts of project financing were summarised in the framework of individual competitions and panels, and then the values of these criteria were calculated per 1 million PLN of the total NSC financing. Data on these criteria are available on the NSC website, for each project that has received funding. These criteria are a good indication of whether the financing of the projects under consideration is sustainable. These are values that are of high importance for scientists and their teams, universities and, consequently, for the evaluation of science in a country. The resulting indicator values result directly from the original project data. Despite its simplicity, this method has advantages in the form of faithful representation of the actual state of affairs of the studied area. The data in this case are not excessively processed and thus are not distorted, and the presented research results are objective and exclude the possibility of data manipulation in order to obtain the desired results.
In order to calculate the values of all of the above mentioned indicators, we used the Equation (1) where: V 1 means the value of the calculated indicator; S t means aggregate sum of a given parameter within a specific competition and panel; F s means 1 million PLN; F t means aggregate amount of total NSC funding within a specific competition and panel in PLN.

Results
The results to be analysed in the form of average value of IF points, number of articles from IF, all articles, conference and book publications and implemented projects per 1 million PLN of the grant amount allocated to projects were obtained using a script in Python language.
The results obtained, that make it possible to illustrate and compare the effectiveness of grant programmes, are presented graphically in the form of column charts and discussed in detail in Appendix A.1.
In the case of the total IF points per 1 million PLN, PRELUDIUM gained an advantage over other competitions within 9 out of 10 evaluated panels belonging to the ST domain and within all panels from the NZ domain. This trend was not observed in the HS field. In general, the highest scores were observed in ST, then in NZ, whereas in HS the results were much lower.
In the case of total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN, ST PRELUDIUM achieved the highest score in 9 out of 10 panels, for NZ in all panels, which again proves the domination of projects implemented under PRELUDIUM in ST and NZ fields. For HS also in the case of this parameter we do not observe such regularity.
For the parameter total number of all paper per 1 million PLN within ST the highest results were achieved by PRELUDIUM in 8 out of 10 panels, and in NZ in all panels. For this parameter this trend was repeated in 4 out of 6 HS panels.
For the parameter total number of conference publications per 1 million PLN, the highest results were most often achieved by PRELUDIUM, because in ST in 9 out of 10 panels, in NZ in 7 out of 9 panels and in HS in 5 out of 6 panels.
In the case of the parameter total number of book publications for 1 million PLN, the higher observed trend of PRELUDIUM domination did not repeat itself in the ST and NZ domains, whereas PRELUDIUM domination was observed in 4 out of 6 HS panels. For ST PRELUDIUM it is dominated by half of the tested panels, and for NZ by 3 out of 9 panels.
The different distribution of areas where PRELUDIUM dominates for this parameter and the lower results for ST and NZ than for the other parameters and HS for this parameter are due to the fact that the result of projects in HS, which is a humanities field, is often books. In the case of ST and NZ, much more often project results are included in conference articles and publications.
In the case of the last parameter evaluated in this section of research, i.e., the number of projects per 1 million PLN, we can see the undisputed, clearly prevailing dominance of PRELUDIUM in all panels of all fields.
It can therefore be concluded that, in order to balance the level of funding of individual projects, it would be appropriate to allocate more money to the funding of projects under the PRELUDIUM competition, especially in the ST and NZ panels.
The high values testify to the high efficiency of the projects in the selected competition and panel compared to other competitions and projects, as well as their high potential to generate good results in the future. Therefore, they prove that the funding for these projects has been too low so far and suggest the need to allocate more funds to them in the future.
The obtained results are presented in following Tables 9 and 10.

Book Publications Projects
In the case of the average IF value of 1 million PLN per HS project, SONATA scored the highest score, followed by PRELUDIUM and OPUS in last place. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second and SONATA third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second and SONATA third.
In the case of of total number of papers with IF per one million PLN within HS, the highest score was achieved by SONATA, followed by PRELUDIUM, with OPUS taking last place. In case of NZ, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second and SONATA third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second and SONATA third.
In the case of the total number of all papers per one million PLN for the HS project, PRELUDIUM scored the highest score, followed by SONATA, and OPUS took last place. In case of NZ, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second and SONATA third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second, and SONATA came third.
In the case of the total number of conference publications per one million PLN per HS project, PRELUDIUM scored the highest score, followed by SONATA and OPUS in last place. In case of NZ, PRELUDIUM came first, SONATA came second and OPUS third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM came first, followed by SONATA in the second OPUS, and SONATA in the third OPUS.
In the case of the total number of book publications per one million PLN per HS project, PRELUDIUM scored the highest score, followed by OPUS and SONATA in last place. In case of NZ, PRELUDIUM and SONATA came first, and OPUS was last. Within ST, OPUS took first place, PRELUDIUM took second place, and SONATA took third place.
In the case of the total number of project publications per one million PLN per project within HS, PRELUDIUM scored the highest score, followed by SONATA and OPUS in last place. In case of NZ, PRELUDIUM came first, OPUS came second and SONATA third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM came first, SONATA came second, and OPUS came third.
Projects financed by the Preludium program achieved the highest result for the number of papers, conference and book publications and projects for the HS domain. PRELUDIUM projects scored highest rank for all the criteria examined for NZ and for all the ST criteria except the number of books published. For the HS domain, most of the tested PRELUDIUM criteria achieved better values than other contests.

Analysis of Profit Criteria Per 1 Million PLN of the Grant Amount Spent on the Purchase or Manufacture of Equipment Necessary for the Implementation of Projects
In this section we have included the results of research on the efficiency and sustainable development of projects in individual competitions and panels in relation to the amount of funding from the NSC for the purchase of equipment and apparatus necessary to implement the project.
Criteria analysed: These are therefore the same data as in Section 3.1, but recalculated in such a way as to examine the sustainability of the project funding in terms of the amount needed to purchase equipment for the project. As in Section 3.1, this is the profit criterion. The higher its value, the more advantageous the result is.

Methods
In order to calculate the values of all of the above mentioned indicators, we used the Equation (2) where: V 2 means the value of the calculated indicator; S t means aggregate sum of a given parameter within a specific competition and panel; P s means 1 million PLN; P t means aggregate amount of NSC funding spent on the purchase of equipment necessary to implement projects within a specific competition and panel in PLN.
The high values prove the high profitability of the projects, since they achieve high values of the examined parameters at low cost of the necessary equipment. In this case, it is worth considering increasing the co-financing of such projects in order to ensure balance of financial resources in comparison with other projects and to contribute to achieving even more favourable results in the future. Providing technical facilities in the form of more and more modern equipment contributes to increasing the capabilities of scientists by accelerating their work and using modern techniques. In turn, the low results in this section of research indicate that certain projects are not cost-effective. In such cases, it is advisable to evaluate them in order to make changes to improve the results in the future. The assessment of the sustainability of the financing necessary for the implementation of equipment projects should for this section take particular account of the area to which the projects belong, as the need for technical facilities depends on its specificity. This demand is lower for the Humanities, Social Sciences and Arts (HS panels) and much higher for Science and Technology (ST panels) and Life Sciences (NZ panels).

Results
The results obtained, that make it possible to illustrate and compare the effectiveness of grant programmes, are presented graphically in the form of column charts and discussed in detail in Appendix A.2.
In case of the parameter total IF points per 1 million PLN apparature cost, for ST the highest score in 9 out of 10 panels was PRELUDIUM, for NZ PRELUDIUM it dominates in terms of the highest score in all panels. This trend is not observed in the case of HS panels.
In case of total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN apparature cost for ST PRELUDIUM wins in 9 out of 10 panels, for ST in all panels and for HS in 4 out of 6 panels.
The results for the parameter total number of conference publications per 1 million PLN apparature cost are very similar, in 9 out of 10 ST panels, in all NZ panels and in 5 out of 6 HS panels PRELUDIUM wins.
For the parameter total nuber of book publications per 1 million PLN apparature cost in 6 out of 10 ST and NZ panels and in 4 out of 6 HS panels PRELUDIUM wins.
In case of the last parameter we examined in the current section, i.e., number of projects per 1 million PLN apparature cost in all fields and panels, PRELUDIUM wins the leading result.
The results to be analysed in the form of average value of IF points, number of articles from IF, all articles, conference and book publications and projects per 1 million PLN of the grant amount allocated for the equipment necessary to implement the projects were obtained using a script in Python language. The obtained results are presented in following Tables 11 and 12.
Analyzing the ranking results of average IF value per 1 million PLN spent on apparatus in the case of HS, we can conclude that SONATA obtained the highest score, followed by PRELUDIUM and OPUS in the last place. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM placed the first position, OPUS was the second and SONATA third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM had the best result again when OPUS came second, and SONATA took the last place in the ranking.
When it comes to a total number of papers with IF value per 1 million PLN spent on apparatus in the example of HS, we can conclude that SONATA was placed on the top, when OPUS and PRELUDIUM were in worse positions. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM proved to be better assessed than OPUS and SONATA in the last place. Analyzing the ST domain, the situation in the ranking is the same as in the case of NZ with PRELUDIUM as the best choice.
When it comes to a total number of papers per 1 million PLN spent on apparatus in the example of HS, PRELUDIUM was placed in the first place, SONATA was the second and OPUS closes the ranking. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM proved to be better than OPUS and SONATA. In ST domain, PRELUDIUM scored the best result before OPUS and SONATA.
In the case of the total number of conference publications per one million PLN apparatus cost, analyzing HS and NZ domains, the ranking presents PRELUDIUM as the best one, before SONATA and OPUS in the third place. In the case of ST, PRELUDIUM was the best again, OPUS took the second place, and SONATA was the least attractive.
Analyzing the ranking results of total number of book publications per one million PLN spent on apparatus in the case of HS, we can conclude that OPUS obtained the highest score, followed by PRELUDIUM and SONATA in the last place. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM placed the first position, SONATA was the second, and OPUS closed the ranking as the last one. Within ST, OPUS had the best result again when PRELUDIUM came second, and SONATA took the last place in the ranking.
The last analyzed criterion is the number of projects per 1 million PLN cost of apparatus. In the case of HS, PRELUDIUM proved to be better assessed than OPUS and SONATA as the worst option. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM obtained the best result in the ranking, the second was SONATA, and the last place came to OPUS. In ST domain, PRELUDIUM dominated second-placed SONATA and third-placed OPUS.
Projects financed by the PRELUDIUM programme scored highest in terms of number of articles, conference publications and projects in the area of HS. PRELUDIUM projects achieved highest rank for all the criteria examined for NZ area and for all the criteria except the number of books published in the ST domain.

Analysis of Cost Criteria for Implemented Projects
For research to be authoritative and reliable, it is essential that it is multidirectional and that many different aspects of the problem are considered. For this reason, Section 3.3 has been devoted by us to analysing the effectiveness of the research against cost criteria. In this group of studies, the low value of the surveyed indicator shows high efficiency and productivity. In the list below we present 3 cost criteria that we decided to include in our research.
Criteria analysed: • Cost of equipment per project; • Duration of the project in months; • Grant amount allocated to the projects;

Methods
In order to calculate the values of all of the above mentioned indicators, we used the Equation (3) where: V 3 means the value of the calculated indicator; S t means aggregate sum of a given parameter within a specific competition and panel; P t means aggregate amount of projects within a specific competition and panel.
The resulting value of calculated indicators is the average value of a given parameter within all analyzed projects. Calculating indicators using this method is a good solution for our study, because we have a very large number of projects, there are no data gaps, they were verified by us at an earlier stage for correctness, so they do not require further processing. Thanks to this, we avoid distorting the values, and thus the results obtained and the final results of the study present the actual situation.
The first cost criterion, i.e., the cost of equipment necessary for the implementation of projects, should be considered individually within each scientific field, due to different needs for equipment facilities for different fields. However, if the results in some competitions are lower than in others, this is a signal of a low level of their co-financing, which is contrary to the assumptions of sustainable project financing.
The second cost criterion, namely duration of the project is an important indicator for the evaluation of the project implementation, as the results of the project are more up-to-date and useful, without unnecessarily prolonging the project duration. This in turn contributes to higher values for the profit criteria indicators.
Low values of the third parameter examined by us in this section, which belongs to the group of cost criteria, i.e., the amount of funding allocated to the implementation of projects, especially when observing much higher values for projects from other competitions and fields, indicate their insufficient funding and should encourage us to take steps to balance the funding, especially if discrepancies appear within different competitions. Differences within domains may be due to their specificities and different needs, and therefore for different fields of science the results of this study should be interpreted individually.

Results
The results for analysis in the form of average values of equipment cost per project, project duration in months and the total grant amount allocated to the projects were obtained using a script in Python language.
The results obtained, that make it possible to illustrate and compare the effectiveness of grant programmes, are presented graphically in the form of column charts and discussed in detail in Appendix A.3.
For the parameter total cost of apparature per one project in all domains and panels, PRELUDIUM scored best. The value of this cost criterion stands out in terms of much lower values for PRELUDIUM, compared to other competitions.
For the parameter duration in months per one project the situation is identical, PRELUDIUM wins in all fields and panels. In case of the parameter grant amount per one project the trend of obtained results is identical, PRELUDIUM wins here too.
The clear domination of the best results for PRELUDIUM for the cost criteria we evaluated proves the high efficiency and profitability of projects financed under this competition.
The obtained results are presented graphically in Tables 13 and 14. Analyzing the ranking results of the total cost of apparatus in PLN per one project in the case of HS, we can conclude that PRELUDIUM obtained the highest score, followed by OPUS and SONATA in the last place. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM has placed the first position again, OPUS was the second and SONATA third. Within ST, PRELUDIUM had the best result when SONATA came second, and OPUS took the last place in the ranking.
When it comes to the duration in months per one project in the example of HS, we can conclude that PRELUDIUM was placed on the top, when OPUS and PRELUDIUM were respectively second and third. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM proved to be better assessed than OPUS and SONATA in the last place. Analyzing the ST domain, the situation in the ranking is the same as in the case of HS and NZ with PRELUDIUM as the best choice, before OPUS and SONATA.
The last analyzed criterion is the grant amount per project. In the case of HS, PRELUDIUM proved to be better assessed than OPUS and SONATA as the worst option. In the case of NZ, PRELUDIUM obtained the best result in the ranking, the second was OPUS, and the last place came to SONATA. Within ST, PRELUDIUM reached the best score again when SONATA came second, and OPUS took the last place in the ranking.
In the case of cost criteria, PRELUDIUM projects were ranked first in all criteria for all the scientific disciplines analysed by us.

Discussion
In general, it is difficult to compare different scientific panels. The differences between the panels may result not only from the differences in the effectiveness of conducting grants, but also from the average IF values of journals in a given field. Undertaken analysis is an example of the use of typical statistics and the creation of new measures to compare complex objects that are part of a dynamically developing interdisciplinary field of data science [31]. Our research has shown a very high effectiveness of PRELUDIUM projects in most of the criteria analyzed in comparison to the other two competitions included in this research called SONATA and OPUS. This fact applies to profit and cost criteria. The most recognizable criterion of effectiveness in the international scientific community is the Impact Factor. In this respect, projects financed under the PRELUDIUM achieved the optimal results for the scientific fields of NZ and ST, and for the HS domain-the second place. This demonstrates the outstanding advantage of PRELUDIUM in terms of IF criterion, especially as the results achieved by projects in all competitions within NZ and ST are much higher than those achieved within HS. This results from the adopted measure of the effect-the IF impact coefficient, which prefers English language journals and non-humanistic sciences [31]. In addition, the PRELUDIUM has the advantage that significantly facilitates the career development of early-stage researchers, as it is aimed at researchers without a PhD degree. In this study, PRELUDIUM projects account for 39.31% of all analysed projects in the three competitions. Supporting young scientists by NSC is therefore a decision that brings benefits to individuals, universities and Polish science. NSC has announced on its website that it is committed to supporting young scientists by allocating no less than 20% of the funds at its disposal to support the development of early-stage researchers.
Use of a Python script to automate the task of collecting a large dataset has saved time and streamlined work needed. It provides great opportunities to detect the relationships between the data, as well as to make them visible and easier to analyze. However, data collected automatically should always be verified for correctness, because the sources may contain errors such as those described in the previous part of this paper. By knowing the correct ranges of values that IF values for articles can take, the wrong data for projects, which accounted for 5.53% of all projects, was corrected.

Conclusions
The conclusion is that PRELUDIUM projects yield very outstanding results in comparison with the other two competitions for the vast majority of the assessed criteria within the scientific fields of HS, NZ and ST. There is no sustainability in the individual panels. The leading PRELUDIUM program almost everywhere, is slightly underfunded. That's why we can also assume that every penny is spent by PRELUDIUM grants most effectively.
After analysing the results, it can be concluded that the results for the HS area are slightly different from those for the ST and NZ areas. First of all, for most of the parameters assessed, the performance of ST and NZ areas is much higher than that of HS, which shows that NSC-funded projects in ST and NZ areas generate higher returns than projects in HS areas. It also means that the different scientific fields differ and are best evaluated separately. It also indicates that there are different funding needs and opportunities within the different domains and panels, so it is appropriate that monitoring and funding of projects within the different domains and panels should be planned, considered and implemented on a case-by-case basis. Analysing the results obtained, it can be concluded that this is the case, since the values of the last cost criterion we examined, i.e., grant amount per one project, are much higher for ST and NZ than for HS, so the financing is tailored to different needs and possibilities from one area to another. In the case of this criterion, it is noted that the funding values are in all areas much lower for PRELUDIUM than for SONATA and OPUS (in most cases, projects financed under PRELUDIUM receive more than 50% less funding than for SONATA and OPUS. In order to ensure sustainable development opportunities for young scientists implementing scientific projects under PRELUDIUM, it seems appropriate to consider increasing the level of their co-financing, especially because these projects achieve very favourable results compared to other programmes in terms of the vast majority of parameters we analyse.
However, deeper reflections require further analysis. The task of evaluating the effectiveness of grant programs is difficult. Still, the results obtained allow making assumptions that in further works, one can build an objective model that will indicate a generalised ranking, taking into account the specificity of fields and disciplines. This is a significant challenge that could enable more sustainable financing of researchers and better efficiency of public spending. Future work will focus on building a tool for qualitative evaluation of projects with the use of simple bibliometric data. For this purpose, an appropriate method of multi-criteria decision support should be first chosen, what is not trivial research task [32].

Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers, whose insightful comments and constructive suggestions helped us to significantly improve the quality of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.     The highest efficiency for the total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN was obtained by PRELUDIUM in the ST area and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of articles with IF per 1 million PLN of grant amount, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results for 9 out of 10 ST panels.  Figure A5 presents the total number of papers with IF at 1 million PLN for individual NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. In terms of total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN, the highest results were achieved by PRELUDIUM for all panels in the NZ field.
The   Figure A6 presents the total number of papers with IF at 1 million PLN for individual HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. In terms of total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN, PRELUDIUM did not have the highest results in any of the HS panels.
The total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN obtained in all the analysed competitions for all HS panels was between 0. 24  For OPUS the lowest value obtained is 0.69 for HS5 and the highest is 7.72 for HS1. The mean value within HS is 3.8, median 3. 16 and typical values are in the range 1.01-6.6.
The highest efficiency for the total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN was obtained by SONATA in the HS area and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of number of articles with IF per 1 million PLN of grant amount, PRELUDIUM did not get the highest result in any HS panel.

HS1
HS2 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS6 The HS panel number  The total number of all papers per 1 million PLN obtained in all analyzed contests for all ST panels is in the range from 11.12 to 41.62. The highest value was obtained for SONATA in panel ST1 and the lowest for SONATA in ST6.   Figure A8 presents the total number of all papers per 1 million PLN for individual NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. In terms of total number of all papers per 1 million PLN, the highest results were achieved by PRELUDIUM for all panels in the NZ field.
The total number of all papers per 1 million PLN obtained in all analyzed contests for all NZ panels is between 4.61 and 21.6. The highest value was obtained for PRELUDIUM in NZ8 panel, and the lowest for SONATA in NZ3. The highest values were obtained in NZ8 panel for PRELUDIUM and OPUS and in NZ9 panel for SONATA, and the lowest in NZ3 panel for all analyzed contests.
For PRELUDIUM the lowest value obtained is 13.86 for NZ3 and the highest is 21.6 for NZ8. Within NZ, the mean value is 16.11, the median value is 15.4, and typical values are in the range 13.59-18.62.
For SONATA, the lowest value obtained is 4.61 for NZ3 and the highest 10.39 for NZ9. The mean value within NZ is 7.6, median 7.53, while typical values are in the range 5.5-9.71.
For OPUS, the lowest obtained value is 5.88 for NZ3 and the highest 13.39 for NZ8. The mean value within NZ is 9.28, median 9.55 and typical values are in the range 7.32-11.25.
The highest efficiency for the total number of all papers per 1 million PLN was achieved by PRELUDIUM and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of total number of articles per 1 million PLN of grant amount, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all of 9 NZ panels.  Figure A9 presents the total number of all papers per 1 million PLN for individual HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. In terms of total number of all papers per 1 million PLN, the highest results were achieved by PRELUDIUM for 5 out of 6 panels in HS field.
The total number of all papers per 1 million PLN obtained in all the analysed contests for all HS panels is between 12 The highest efficiency for the total number of all papers per 1 million PLN was obtained by PRELUDIUM and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of total number of articles per 1 million PLN of grant amount, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results for 5 out of 6 HS panels.   Figure A11 presents the total number of conference publications for 1 million PLN for individual NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. In terms of total number of conference publications per 1 million PLN, the highest results were achieved by PRELUDIUM for 7 out of 9 panels in the NZ field.
The total number of conference publications per 1 million PLN obtained in all analyzed contests for all NZ panels are between 1.38 and 18.11. The highest value was obtained for PRELUDIUM in the NZ9 panel, and the lowest for SONATA in NZ1.   For SONATA, the lowest value obtained is 1.17 for HS6 and the highest is 11.57 for HS4. The mean value within HS is 6.19, median 6.4 and typical values are in the range 3.05-9.33.
For OPUS the lowest value obtained is 1.84 for HS6 and the highest 8.86 for HS4. The mean value within HS is 5.25, median 5. 16 and typical values are in the range 3.07-7.43.
The highest efficiency for the total number of conference publications per 1 million PLN was obtained by PRELUDIUM in the HS area and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of number of conference publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results for 5 out of 6 HS panels.    Figure A15 presents the total number of book publications for 1 million PLN for individual HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS. In terms of total number of book publications per 1 million PLN, the highest results were achieved by PRELUDIUM for 4 out of 6 panels in HS field.
The The highest effectiveness of total number of book publications per 1 million PLN was obtained by PRELUDIUM in the HS area and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of book publications per one million PLN of grant amount, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in 5 out of 6 HS panels.

HS1
HS2 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS6 The HS panel number   For PRELUDIUM, the lowest value obtained is 6.37 for NZ6 and the highest is 8.58 for NZ1. Within NZ, the mean value is 7.51, the median value is 7.6, and typical values are in the range 6.81-8.2.
For SONATA, the lowest value obtained is 1.55 for NZ1 and the highest 2.33 for NZ5. The mean value within NZ is 1.99, median 2.09 and typical values are in the range 1.74-2.24.
For OPUS, the lowest obtained value is 1.84 for NZ2 and the highest 2.94 for NZ8. The mean value within NZ is 2.2, median 2.2 and typical values are in the range 1.88-2.53.
The highest efficiency for the number of projects per 1 million PLN was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of projects per one million PLN of grant amount, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in all 9 NZ panels.  The highest efficiency for the number of projects per 1 million PLN was achieved by PRELUDIUM in HS and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of number of projects per one million PLN of grant amount, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in all 6 HS panels.

HS1
HS2 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS6 The HS panel number The highest total IF points per 1 million PLN were obtained by PRELUDIUM in the ST area and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of total IF points per one million PLN of apperature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in 9 out of 10 ST panels.  The highest total IF points per 1 million PLN were obtained by PRELUDIUM in the NZ area and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of total IF points per one million PLN of apperature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in all 9 NZ panels.  The highest total IF points per 1 million PLN were obtained by SONATA in the HS area and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of total IF points per one million PLN of apperature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in only 2 out of 6 HS panels.   The highest efficiency of the total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN was obtained by PRELUDIUM in the NZ area and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of papers with IF per one million PLN of apperature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in all 9 NZ panels.  The highest efficiency of the total number of papers with IF per 1 million PLN was obtained by SONATA in the HS area and the lowest by PRELUDIUM.
In terms of number of papers with IF per one million PLN of apparature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results in 2 out of HS panels.  The highest efficiency for the total number of articles per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by OPUS in the ST field and the lowest by PRELUDIUM.
In terms of number of articles per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results for 9 out of 10 ST panels.  Figure A26 presents the total number of papers per one million PLN apparature cost for NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total number of articles per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost obtained in all analysed competitions for all NZ panels are in the range from 31. 21 Figure A27 presents the total number of papers per one million PLN apparature cost for HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total number of articles per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost obtained in all analysed competitions for all HS panels are in the range from 185.67 to 2993. 20 The highest efficiency for the total number of articles per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost in HS field was reached by PRELUDIUM when the OPUS was the least effective.
In terms of number of articles per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the PRELUDIUM achieved the highest results for 4 out of 6 HS panels.

HS1
HS2  The highest efficiency for the total number of conference publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the ST field and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of conference publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for 9 out of 10 ST panels.  Figure A29 presents the total number of conference publications per one million PLN apparature cost for NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total number of conference publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost obtained in all analysed competitions for all NZ panels are in the range from 10 The highest efficiency for the total number of conference publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ field and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of number of conference publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all 9 NZ panels.  Figure A30 presents the total number of conference publications per one million PLN apparature cost for HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total number of conference publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost obtained in all analysed competitions for all HS panels are in the range from 11 The highest efficiency for the total number of conference publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the HS field and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of number of conference publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for 4 out of 6 HS panels.

HS1
HS2  The highest efficiency for the total number of book publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the ST field and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of book publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for 6 out of 10 ST panels.  Figure A32 presents the total number of book publications per one million PLN apparature cost for NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total number of book publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost obtained in all analysed competitions for all NZ panels are in the range from 0.00 to 37.56. The highest value was obtained for SONATA in panel NZ6 and the lowest for SONATA in NZ8. The highest efficiency for the total number of book publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ field and the lowest by opus.
In terms of number of book publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for 6 out of 10 NZ panels.  Figure A33 presents the total number of book publications per one million PLN apparature cost for HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The The highest efficiency for the total number of book publications per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the HS field and the lowest by OPUS.
In terms of number of book publications per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for 4 out of 6 HS panels.  The highest efficiency for the total number of projects per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ field and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of projects per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all 9 NZ panels.   The highest efficiency for the total number of projects per one million PLN of the grant amount for apparatus cost was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the HS field and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of number of projects per 1 million PLN of grant amount for apparature cost, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all 6 HS panels. The highest efficiency for a total cost of apparatus in PLN per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the ST field when OPUS was the leased effective.
In terms of costs of apparature in PLN per project, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all of the 10 panels within the ST domain.  Figure A38 presents the total cost of apparature in PLN per one project for NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total cost of apparatus in PLN per one project obtained in all analysed competitions for all NZ panels is in the range from 4166. 67  The highest efficiency for a total cost of apparatus in PLN per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ field when SONATA was the leased effective.
In terms of costs of apparature in PLN per project, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all of the 9 panels within the NZ domain.  Figure A39 presents the total cost of apparature in PLN per one project for HS panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The total cost of apparatus in PLN per one project obtained in all analysed competitions for all HS panels are in the range from 1387.05 to 23008.90. The best result was achieved for PRELUDIUM in panel HS1 and the worst for SONATA in HS2. The highest efficiency for the total cost of apparatus in PLN per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the HS field and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of costs of apparature in PLN per project, the highest results were obtained by PRELUDIUM for all of the 10 panels within the ST domain.

HS1
HS2  The highest efficiency for the duration in months per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the ST field when SONATA was the leased effective.
In terms of duration in months per project, the PRELUDIUM for all 10 panels in the ST field achieved the highest results.  Figure A41 presents the duration in months per one project for NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The duration in months per one project obtained in all analysed competitions for all NZ panels is in the range from 24.40 to 43.50. The best result was achieved for PRELUDIUM in panel NZ1 and the worst for SONATA in NZ6. The best results were obtained in panel NZ1 for PRELUDIUM, in NZ2 for SONATA and NZ8 for OPUS. In contrast, the worst outcomes were achieved in panel NZ5 for PRELUDIUM, in NZ6 for SONATA and NZ1 for OPUS.
PRELUDIUM received prime outcome in panel NZ1 equal to 24 The highest efficiency for a duration in months per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ field when SONATA was the leased effective.
In terms of duration in months per project, the PRELUDIUM for all 9 panels in the NZ field achieved the highest results.  The duration in months per one project obtained in all analysed competitions for all HS panels is in the range from 21.39 to 38.05. The best result was achieved for PRELUDIUM in panel HS5 and the worst for SONATA in HS6. The best results were obtained in panel HS5 for PRELUDIUM, in HS3 for SONATA and HS4 for OPUS. In contrast, the worst outcomes were achieved in panel HS3 for PRELUDIUM and OPUS and in HS6 for SONATA.
PRELUDIUM received prime outcome in panel HS5 equal to 21 The highest efficiency for the duration in months per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the HS field and the lowest by SONATA.
In terms of duration in months per project, the PRELUDIUM for all 6 panels in the HS field achieved the highest results.

HS1
HS2 HS3 HS4 HS5 HS6 The HS panel number  The grant amount per one project obtained in all analysed competitions for all ST panels is in the range from 63,378.60 to 608,301.44. The best result was achieved for PRELUDIUM in panel ST1 and the worst for SONATA in ST2. The best results were obtained in panel ST1 in all analysed contests. In contrast, the worst outcomes were achieved in panel ST8 for PRELUDIUM and in ST7 for SONATA and OPUS.
PRELUDIUM The highest efficiency for the duration in months per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the ST field when OPUS was the leased effective.
In terms of resources allocated to the project, the PRELUDIUM for all 10 panels in the ST domain achieved the highest results.  Figure A44 presents the grant amount per one project for NZ panels for PRELUDIUM, SONATA and OPUS.
The grant amount per one project obtained in all analysed competitions for all NZ panels is in the range from 116,531.12 to 644,698.89. The best result was achieved for PRELUDIUM in panel NZ1 and the worst for SONATA in NZ1. The best results were obtained in panel NZ1 for PRELUDIUM, in NZ5 for SONATA and NZ8 for OPUS. In contrast, the worst outcomes were achieved in panel NZ6 for PRELUDIUM, in NZ1 for SONATA and NZ2 for OPUS.
PRELUDIUM The highest efficiency for a grant amount per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the NZ field when SONATA was the leased effective.
In terms of resources allocated to the project, the PRELUDIUM for all 9 panels in the NZ domain achieved the highest results.  The highest efficiency for the duration in months per one project was achieved by PRELUDIUM in the HS field when the SONATA and OPUS were similarly less effective.
In terms of resources allocated to the project, the PRELUDIUM for all 6 panels in the HS domain achieved the highest results.