| 优化科学基金同行评议机制的思考 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 陈光,陈凯华,龚旭,苑怡,方新.优化科学基金同行评议机制的思考[J].中国科学院院刊,2021,36(12):1427-1433. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 陈光 陈凯华 龚旭 苑怡 方新 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国科学院 学部工作局 北京 100190;中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院 北京 100190;国家自然科学基金委员会 北京 100085;国家科技评估中心 北京 100081;中国科学院大学 公共政策与管理学院 北京 100049 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 同行评议是科学共同体的自我规范机制之一，是科学质量控制的核心环节。国家自然科学基金资助工作的核心运行机制是同行评议，它是遴选高质量基金项目的重要保障机制。为了使同行评议科学、客观、公正，稳步推进国家自然科学基金新时期的改革与发展，文章从同行评议机制的发展及其优缺点出发，分析了当前国家自然科学基金同行评议机制面临的挑战：不适应跨越式发展需要，专家和管理队伍规模不适应项目申请数量增长，专家评审行为缺少对象反馈且评审专家遴选有待优化，以及项目评审流程缺少监控手段等。据此，文章提出完善国家自然科学基金同行评议机制，建设“负责任、讲信誉、计贡献”（RCC）的同行评议监督与评价系统思路。文章阐述了RCC机制的动态性和科学性，总结了其在优化国家自然科学基金管理和提高项目评审效率中的潜在用途，为进一步推进RCC机制的改革发展提供了一定的理论依据。实践显示，同行评议的RCC改革方向是有效的，但仍需进一步完善RCC制度设计、加强评审质量监测并营造RCC评审文化。文章从多角度论述了完善科学基金同行评议机制的重要性，指明该机制所面临的挑战与可行的发展路径，为RCC监督与评价系统的改革与发展提供一定参考，同时对新时期稳步推进国家自然科学基金的管理具有借鉴意义。
|
| 关 键 词： | 科学基金 同行评议 评审机制 |
| 收稿时间： | 2021/12/1 0:00:00 |
Thoughts on Optimizing Peer Review Mechanism of Science Foundation |
| |
| CHEN Guang,CHEN Kaihu,GONG Xu,YUAN Yi,FANG Xin.Thoughts on Optimizing Peer Review Mechanism of Science Foundation[J].Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,2021,36(12):1427-1433. |
| |
| Authors: | CHEN Guang CHEN Kaihu GONG Xu YUAN Yi FANG Xin |
| |
| Institution: | Academic Divisions, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing 100085, China;National Center for Science & Technology Evaluation, Beijing 100081, China; School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | science foundation peer review review mechanism |
|
| 点击此处可从《中国科学院院刊》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《中国科学院院刊》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
