1. At the Fourth meeting of the working party on Research Institutions and Public Research (RIHR) on 26-27 April 2012, delegates agreed that long-term funding should be defined as four years or more for the study.
2. In rare cases, calls for specific disciplines or subject areas are not made in the same year. If these discipline-specific calls are separated by at least two years, the respective measures are still included under this criterion.
3. At the Fourth RIHR meeting on 26-27 April 2012, delegates agreed that a precise funding figure should not be set until the final analysis was undertaken. This was to ensure that smaller countries with less funds for REIs would not be excluded from the study. Therefore, the definition used in the questionnaires stated that “substantially more funds are provided than individual project-based funding”.
4. The project steering group was made up of nominated delegates and county experts.
5. www.aka.fi/Tiedostot/Hakuilmoitukset/Hakuilmoitus svvskuu 2012 en.pdf, p. 53, accessed 20 February 2013.
6. Not all respondents answered all questionnaire items, so that the sum of all answers for any given item is usually lower than the sum of all REIs described here.
7. http.//bnc.krf.or.kr/home/eng/bk21/aboutbk21.jsp. accessed 20 February 2013.
8. httP?//english.mest.go.kr/web/40724/en/board/endownload.do?boardSea=40730? p. 16, accessed 20 February 2013.
9. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Republic of Korea (undated).
10. httP?//erawatch.irc.ec.europa.eu/erawatch/opencms/information/countrv pages/si /supportmeasure/support mig 0002, accessed 20 February 2013.
21102009.pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1274460443833&s sbinary=true, p. 6, accessed 20 February 2013.
22. New Zealand’s CoRE explicitly states this aspect,. www.tec.govt.nz/Documents/Forms%20Templates%20and%20Guides/cores- selection-process.pdf p. 4, accessed 20 February 2013.
23. Available at www.isps.go.ip/english/e-globalcoe/04 selection.html (viewed 20 March 2013).
24. The Polish respondent also mentioned this as an explanation for the relatively low number of applications to KNOW (25).
25. The Canadian REI Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) has a similar feature, in the first stage of the selection process, institutions submit proposals. They are then shortlisted and may nominate “excellence chairholders”, i.e. world-famous scholars that will build up research groups at the host institutions.
26. www.vr.se/mainmenu/pressandnews/newsarchive/news2009/ recommendationsforthefundingofstrategicresearchareasnowcomplete.5.3b26f940121e cde8aa480006516.html, accessed 20 February 2013.
27. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Republic of Korea (undated), pp. 6-8.
28. Another instance of an REI embedded in a comprehensive funding approach is the French Initiatives d’Excellence. It is nested in the scientific branch of a major state initiative called Investissements d'Avenir, which has a complex structure, with subprogrammes for curiosity-driven research, national priority areas, and infrastructure.
29. www.arhiv.mvzt.gov.si/en/areas of work/science and technology/centres of excellence and competence centres/, accessed 7 March 2013.
30. http://www8.cao.go.ip/cstp/english/basic/3rd-BasicPlan 06-10.pdfm, p. 36, accessed
20 February 2013.
31. www.aka.fi/en-GB/A/Programmes-and-cooperation/Centres-of-Excellence- /Reporting-by-CoEs/, accessed 20 February 2013.
32. REIs are also a popular funding instrument in non-OECD economies; see Salmi (2009, pp. 85ff.), which lists REIs in China and Chinese Taipei.