评科学基金的同行评议制

COMMENT ON PEER-REVIEW OF SCIENCE FUNDS

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。

On the basis of the results of the investigation obtained by the writers who inquired about peer-review of sicence funds of some 164 scholars and experts of Disciplinary Evaluation Panels of NSFC, the opinions about the fairnees of peer-review, the improvement of the quality and efficiency of programs evaluation for research grants, and other related problems of programs' evaluation are discussed in this paper. It is believed that the system of peer-review is a feasible and valid method which can ensure funds to be used effectively in the promotion of the development of basic research as well as guarantee the fairness of research granting and the advanced academic level of granted programs. When comparing the evaluation by correspondence to that by panel discussion, both means have their advantages and disadvantages and hence need to be further improved. Similarly, each of qualitative evaluation and quantitative evaluation has its own strong and weak point. Currently, the feasibility study on the gradual replacement of qualitative evaluation by quantitative evaluation should be carried out while keeping qualitative evaluation as the main approach. Finally, the authors suggest that study on the related problems of peer-review of science funds should be performed.