•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

Keywords

science foundation; peer review; review mechanism

Document Type

Operation System and Management of National Natural Science Foundation of China in New Era

Abstract

Peer review is the self-regulating mechanism of the scientific community and the core link of scientific quality control. The core operating mechanism of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is peer review, which is an important guarantee for the selection of high-quality projects. In order to promote the scientificity, objectivity, and impartiality of peer review, and steadily advance the reform and development of NSFC in the new era, this study analyzes the challenges of the current peer review mechanism of science foundation based on the review of the development of the peer review mechanism, and its advantages and disadvantages. Specifically, the challenges include the inability of the mechanism to meet the needs of catch-up development, the difficulty of the scale of the expert and management team to meet the increasing for project application quantity, the lack of object feedback in the expert review, and the need to optimize the selection of review experts, as well as the lack of monitoring means for the project review process. Accordingly, this study further proposes ideas of improving the peer review mechanism and establishing a "Responsibility, Credibility, Contribution" (RCC) supervision and evaluation system. This study not only clarifies the dynamic and scientific nature of this evaluation system, but also summarizes its potential use in optimizing the management of science foundation and improving the efficiency of project review, providing a theoretical basis for further promotion of the RCC supervision and evaluation system. This idea has been applied in the reform of the science foundation, and the results indicate that the direction of RCC reform is effective. This study further emphasizes the necessity to improve the system design, strengthen the monitoring of review quality, and create a culture of responsible review. It discusses the importance of improving the peer review mechanism of science foundation from multiple perspectives, points out the challenges and feasible development paths of the mechanism, and provides a certain basis for the further reform and development of the RCC supervision and evaluation system, which is of great significance to steadily promote the management of NSFC in the new era.

First page

1427

Last Page

1433

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

1 Daryl E C, Edward J H. 难有同行的科学:同行评议与美国科学政策. 谭文华, 曾国屏, 译. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2011. 2 London A J, Kimmelman J. Against pandemic research exceptionalism. Science, 2020, 368:476-477. 3 Kwon D. How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature, 2020, 581:130-131. 4 Burnham J C. The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1990, 263(10):1323-1329. 5 Baldwin M. In referees we trust?. Physics Today, 2017, 70(2):44-49. 6 Roy R. Funding science:The real defects of peer review and an alternative to it. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1985, 10(3):33-38. 7 龚旭. 科学政策与同行评议:中美科学制度与政策比较研究. 杭州:浙江大学出版社, 2009. 8 Philip S, Stefan K. 科技政策评估:来自美国与欧洲的经验. 方衍, 邢怀滨, 等, 译. 北京:科学技术文献出版社, 2015. 9 Bornmann L. Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2011, 45(1):197-245. 10 Liu X Z, Fang H. Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly. Part II. Scientometrics, 2012, 90(2):607-616. 11 Lee C J, Sugimoto C R, Zhang G, et al. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2013, 64(1):2-17. 12 徐彩荣, 李晓轩. 国外同行评议的不同模式与共同趋势. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2005, 26(2):28-33. 13 Abdoul H, Perrey C, Amiel P, et al. Peer review of grant applications:Criteria used and qualitative study of reviewer practices. PLoS One, 2012, 7(9):e46054. 14 范英杰, 徐芳. 如何看待研究成果社会影响力评价?——英国高等教育机构科研水平评估框架概览. 科学与社会, 2019, 9(1):129-142. 15 何光喜, 石长慧, 薛品, 等. 国家自然科学基金在科学界的形象——基于抽样调查数据的分析. 中国科学基金, 2016, 30(5):417-424. 16 徐芳, 龚旭, 李晓轩. 科研评价改革与发展40年——以基金委同行评议和中科院研究所综合评价为例. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2018, 39(12):17-27. 17 中共中央文献研究室. 习近平关于科技创新论述摘编. 北京:中央文献出版社, 2016 18 杨卫, 郑永和, 董超. 如何评审具有颠覆性创新的基础研究. 中国科学基金, 2017, 31(4):313-315. 19 江虎军, 郝艳妮, 徐岩英, 等. 国家自然科学基金项目同行评议的智能化探讨. 中国科学基金, 2019, 33(2):149-153. 20 李东, 郝艳妮, 何贤芒. 国家自然科学基金同行评议专家信息库的梳理与重构设计. 中国科学基金, 2014, 28(3):209-213.

Download
Request a Copy

Share

COinS