论文部分内容阅读
本文在对国家自然科学基金委员会学科评审组164位专家问卷调查的基础上,围绕如何提高科学基金项目评审质量和评审效率,对同行评议的公正性、对策研究等问题阐述了作者的看法。作者认为同行评议是确保有限经费尽可能有效地用于发展基础研究,保证资助的公正性、科学性和高度学术水平的切实可行的方法。通讯评议与会议评议各有利弊,目前应不断完善,以提高评审质量和效率。定性评议和定量化评议各有优缺点,现阶段宜在定性评审的基础上,逐渐探索增加定量化评议的可行性。最后,作者建议应从多方面开展对同行评议中的对策性问题的研究,以建立一个能保证不断改进同行评议公正性的支持系统。
Based on the questionnaire survey of 164 experts of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) subject reviewing group, this paper elaborates the author's opinions on how to improve the quality and efficiency of the evaluation of science fund projects, the fairness of peer review and the countermeasure research. The author believes that peer review is a practical way to ensure that limited funds are used as efficiently as possible for the development of basic research and to ensure the impartiality, scientificity and high academic standards of funding. There are pros and cons to the communication review and the conference review, which should be continuously improved so as to improve the quality and efficiency of the review. Qualitative assessment and quantitative evaluation of each have their own advantages and disadvantages, at this stage should be based on the qualitative assessment, and gradually explore the feasibility of increasing the quantitative evaluation. Finally, the author suggests that research on countermeasures in peer review should be carried out in many aspects so as to establish a support system that can guarantee the continuous improvement of peer review.