期刊文献+

国际主要科学基金组织的地学资助战略分析 被引量:4

Analysis of the international science foundation financing strategy for earth science
原文传递
导出
摘要 通过对美国国家科学基金会(NSF)、英国自然环境研究理事会(NERC)和德国亥姆霍兹研究中心联合会(Helmholtz Association)等国际上的主要科学基金组织和资助机构过去10年的地球科学资助战略进行系统分析,总结出国际主要科学基金组织和资助机构的地学资助战略特点:(1)高水平学科发展战略研究成果引领和指导学科资助规划工作;(2)规范的研究工作组织机制和严谨的质量控制流程保证了高水平研究成果;(3)学科战略与资助规划的战略性、前瞻性和逻辑性特征明显;(4)发展战略与资助规划日益强调地球科学研究成果的社会发展与应用等。此外,还系统概括了国际地球科学的6大发展趋势,并提出了对我国地球科学资助战略研究的启示与建议。 Based on the systematic analysis of funding strategies of the National Science Foundation, the UK Natural Environment Research Council, the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centers and other international leading science foundations for earth science past 10 years, we summarize the features of the foundations' science funding strategies, high level of discipline development strategy research results lead and guide the discipline funding planning; specification of the research work organization mechanism and strict quality control process to ensure the high level research; the prospective, insight and logic char- acteristics of subject strategy research and planning is significantly; development strategy and funding plan increasing emphasis on social development application of achievements in scientific research in earth science. We also summarize six development trends in earth science, and put forward enlightenments and suggestions on funding strategy for China's Earth Science.
出处 《中国科学基金》 CSSCI CSCD 北大核心 2016年第2期163-170,共8页 Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China
基金 国家自然科学基金(项目批准号:41450008)资助
关键词 地球科学 战略研究 学科规划 资助战略 科学基金组织 资助机构 earth science development strategies funding strategy science foundations.
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献81

共引文献90

同被引文献49

  • 1德意志研究联合会在德国及欧洲科学研究方面的促进作用[J].德国研究,1996,11(2):59-63. 被引量:2
  • 2杨国军,朱九田,鄂宏哲.德意志研究联合会的科研评审体系研究及借鉴[J].科技导报,2005,23(11):73-75. 被引量:7
  • 3The National Academies. Report Review Committee Guidlines for Review : Consensus Reports. http://www.nas.edu/site_assets/ groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na_067076.pdf.
  • 4The National Academies. Report Review Committee Guidlines for Review: Letter Reports and Other Abbreviated Documents http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/na_O67075.html.
  • 5The National Academies. Report Review Committee Guidlines for Review: Workshop Reports and Summaries. http://www nationalacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/web- page/na_067079.pdf.
  • 6The National Academies. Report Review Committee Guid- lines for Review: Workshop Proceedings. http://www.nation- alacademies.org/site_assets/groups/nasite/documents/webpage/ na_067078.pdf.
  • 7RAND. Standards for High Quality Research and Analysis. http://www.rand.org/standards.html.
  • 8World Resources Institute. Excellence in Publications. http:// www.wri.org/publications/excellence.
  • 9Energy Information Agency. Information Quality Guidelines. http://www.eia.gov/about/information_quality_guidelines.cfm.
  • 10National Research Council. Our Study Process-Ensuring In- dependent Objective Advice. http://www.nas.edu/site_assets/ groups/nasite/documents/webpage/na 069618.pdf.

引证文献4

二级引证文献39

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部