委员会同行评议遴选奖学金获得者：理事会决定的可靠性、公正性与预见的有效性
摘要
在科学界，同行评议是科技论文、奖学金和研究基金申请等评审的最完善的方法．然而，人们经常质疑同行评议的公正性、可靠性、以及其是否达到了遴选最好的科学或最好的科学家的目的．文中首次报道了有关委员会评议遴选博士和博士后基金获得者的综合研究．从可靠性、公正性和可预见有效性等3个专业评审标准方面分析了Boe—hringer Ingelheim Fonds（B．I．F．）——一个生物医学方面基础研究基金的遴选程序．分析了2697项申请，其中1954项申请博士基金，743项申请博士后基金．在76％的案例中，评议人一致同意申请人获得资助．
出处
《管理科学学报》
CSSCI
北大核心
2007年第A01期51-64,共14页
Journal of Management Sciences in China
参考文献84
-
1KOSTOFF, R. N. (1997). The principles and practices of peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3: 19-34.
-
2JAYASINGHE, U. W. , MARSH, H. W. , BOND, N. (2003). A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A. Statistics in Society, 166: 279-300.
-
3HACKETT, E. J. , CHUBIN, D. E. (2003). Peer review for the 21st century: Applications to education research. Paper presented at the conference entitled Peer Review of Education Research Grant Applications. Implications, Considerations, and Future Directions, Washington, DC, USA.
-
4EISENHART, M. (2002). The paradox of peer review: Admitting too much or allowing too little? Research in Science Education, 32: 241-255.
-
5INCE, M. ( 1991 ). US research may drop peer review for lottery. Times Higher Education Supplement, 955 : 85.
-
6RENNIE, D. (2003). Innovation and peer review. In: GODLEE, F., JEFFERSON, T. (Eds), Peer Review in Health Sciences. London, UK: BMJ Books, pp. 76-90.
-
7POLANYI, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday.
-
8MCCLELLAN, J. E. (2003). Specialist control . The publications Committee of the Academie-Royal-des- Sciences (Paris) 1700. 1793. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 93 : VII.
-
9GOODMAN, S. N. , BERLIN, J. , FLETCHER, S. W. , FLETCHER, R. H. (1994). Manuscript quality before and after peer-review and editing at Annals of Internal-Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 121:11-21.
-
10PIERIE, J. P. E. N., WALVOORT,,H. C., OVERBEKE, A. J. P. M. (1996). Readers. evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet, 348 : 1480-1483.
-
1Instructions for Authors[J].The Journal of Biomedical Research,2011,25(1):74-78.
-
2AlMS ＆ SCOPE[J].Nano Research,2013,6(4).
-
3AlMS ＆ SCOPE[J].Nano Research,2013,6(2):159-160.
-
4AlMS ＆ SCOPE[J].Nano Research,2013,6(1):77-78.
-
5傅其钫.关于设计质量的评审标准[J].造船技术,1996(10):13-14.
-
6本刊编辑部.《中国表面工程》20篇文章入选2013年度“领跑者5000——中国精品科技期刊顶尖学术论文”[J].中国表面工程,2014,27(4):123-123.
-
7Instructions for Authors[J].The Journal of Biomedical Research,2015,29(1).
-
8周晓兰.同行评议制度局限性研究[J].北京机械工业学院学报,2007,22(4):66-68.
-
9孙尉翔.论文数量第一是次要问题[J].科技创业,2011(8):100-101.
-
10梁慧刚.纳米科技在中国的监管:挑战和效率[J].新材料产业,2012(10):44-46.
