认知视角的科学基金项目专家评议意见分析——基于ER规则的研究  

Analysis of the Expert Judgments in the NSFC Peer Review from the Perspective of Human Cognition: A Research Based on the ER Rule

作　　者：王东鹏[1] 朱卫东[2] 陈波[1] 刘芳[1] 

机构地区：[1]合肥工业大学管理学院,合肥230009 [2]合肥工业大学经济学院,合肥230601

出　　处：《科学学与科学技术管理》2015年第4期22-35,共14页Science of Science and Management of S.& T.

基　　金：国家自然科学基金委主任基金项目(J1124002;J1424015);国家自然科学基金青年项目(71001031)

摘　　要：科学基金专家评议意见的可解释性会影响项目资助合理性以及项目申请者对评议意见的理解。项目评议时,专家先根据评议要点对项目的科学意义和应用前景等属性进行评价,得出综合意见;科学基金再合成多位专家意见,得出项目评议结论。在此过程中,专家属性意见与综合意见的一致性和专家间的非共识意见是影响专家意见可解释性的主要问题。上述问题可从认知视角分析其影响因素,并利用ER规则量化影响因素、合成专家意见。通过分析量化可界定专家属性意见的一致性权重关系,判断意见是否一致;而专家间的非共识意见也可因此分为"因属性评价意见不同、权重不同或专家意见不一致造成的非共识";最后依据科学基金专家评议的真实信息验证了方法的适用性。In the process of the proposal review of National Natural Science Foundation of China（NSFC）, the interpretability of expert opinions could determine the rationality of the grant peer review and affect the applicant’s understanding of the opinions about his/her research proposal. The whole process of the NSFC proposal review could be divided into two phases. In the first phase, each expert gives the collective judgment about a research proposal based on his or her evaluation on every attribute of the research proposal, such as ’the scientific significance of the research’. In the second phase, the NSFC combines all the experts’ judgments about the proposal and determine the final conclusion of it. The cognitive consistency of each expert’s judgment and the controversial opinions between different experts are the key issues which have impacts on the interpretability of expert opinions. The influencing factors of these issues can be identified from the perspective of human cognition and then quantified by utilizing the Evidential Reasoning rule（ER rule）. The ER rule is also applied to combine the expert opinions in both phases. In accordance with the quantified influencing factors, the weight of expert attribute judgments can be found out to combine the attribute judgments of the expert. Based on the weight, the assessment criteria of expert’s cognitive consistency are provided. Thereby, the controversial opinions between experts could be explained due to the different attribute judgments of the experts, the distinct weights of the experts, or the cognitive inconsistency of the experts. Finally, the rationality of above analysis is verified with reference to the real data from the NSFC.

关 键 词：国家自然科学基金同行评议 认知不一致 非共识意见 ER规则 BRB系统 

分 类 号：G311[文化科学]