"scientific performance" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to the performance or results of a scientific activity or study. For example, "The recent scientific performance of the research team was impressive."
In general, the short-term research projects are interesting for academia when they can be valued in terms of educational credits, though not as scientific performance in terms of publications, because the results are generally not sufficiently scientifically profound.
That leaves open the possibility that it is not beer drinking that causes poor scientific performance, but just the opposite.
More important, as Dr. Grim pointed out, the study documents a correlation between beer drinking and scientific performance without explaining why they are correlated.
"It's rather devastating to be told we should drink less beer in order to increase our scientific performance," Dr. Symonds said.
Instead, scientific performance steadily declined with increasing beer consumption across the board, from scientists who primly sip at two or three beers over a year to the sort who average knocking back more than two a day.
"E.P.A. needs an appropriately qualified science official at a sufficiently high level to carry both the authority and responsibility for agencywide scientific performance," the committee said in its report.
The scientific performances of future hard X-ray missions will necessitate a very low detector background level.
In this work we will describe the technical characteristics and the scientific performances of the flight model of the instrument.
It is therefore essential to estimate the instrument background expected in orbit during the early phases of the instrument design in order to optimise the scientific performances of the mission.
Current measures of scientific publication performance routinely rely on two counting methods: inflated counting (Figure 1C), where full authorship credit is issued repeatedly to all coauthors (also known as total, normal, or standard counting), and fractional counting, where one credit is divided equally among all coauthors (Figure 1B, 2B) [18] [18].
For an approved applicant, the expected scientific mean performance is increased by 31% (number of papers), by 41% (citations for papers published prior to application) and by 49% (citations for papers published subsequent to application) against a rejected applicant, holding all other variables in the models (models 2 and 3) constant.
