学科年度同行评议:基于遗传学与生物信息学科基金项目评审意见的分析  

Annual peer review status in the displinary of genetics and bioinformatics of NSFC

作　　者：谷瑞升[1] 张晾[2] 王胤 田艳艳[1] 杜生明[1] 

机构地区：[1]国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部,北京100085 [2]山东师范大学,济南250014 [3]青岛大学,青岛266021

出　　处：《中国科学基金》2017年第6期603-608,共6页Bulletin of National Natural Science Foundation of China

摘　　要：同行评议是国家自然科学基金项目评审体系中最为重要的一环,也是决定资助项目质量的关键环节。了解同行评议状况,发现问题和改进不足,也成为完善专家系统和提升评审质量的有效途径。为此,在前期探索的基础上,我们从评议专家对项目的综合评价、对项目的熟悉程度、对项目评价的区分度、评议意见内容和评议专家间共识度等方面,对2016年遗传学与生物信息学科445位同行评议专家的评审意见进行了分析。结果显示,同行评议质量总体良好,绝大多数专家对评议项目把握准确,项目综合得分情况基本呈正态分布,97.8%的专家对所评议的项目熟悉/较熟悉,97.5%的专家对所评项目给出合理的区分度,98%的专家评议认真,撰写的评议意见具体并有实质性意见和建议。但也发现了极个别专家存在一定问题,如有的专家对评议项目缺乏区分度,有的专家学术判断存在较大问题,有的专家撰写的评议意见过于简短且俱为套话和空话。针对上述问题,我们与相关专家进行了沟通并给予督促,同时对有些专家在以后的同行评议中予以回避。本文对专家评议状况进行了分析,期于在管理上作出探索和尝试,为提高同行评议质量提供理论依据。Peer review is the most essential in the project evaluation system in the National Natural Science Fundation,for it is a key step to influence and even decide the quality of the supported projects.In order to improve the quality of peer review,we should give an insight into the peer review,identify problems and improve deficiencies.Therefore,based on the preliminary exploration,we did an analysis on the evalution results of 445 peer correspondents in the displinary of the genetics and bioinformatics in 2016 in terms of comprehensive evaluation,familiarity,discrimination,comments and consensus degree.The results showed that the quality of peer review was generally good,and most experts reviewed the project accurately and fairly.The degree of comprehensive evaluation presented a normal distribution.97.8% of the experts were familiar with the contents of proposals,and 97.5% discriminated the proposals reasonably,and 98%gave specific and substantive comments.But we also found that very few experts had certain problems,such as lack of discrimination,judging differently with others,providing short and non-substantive comments.In view of above problems,we have taken some measures,such as communicating with the peer correspondents and giving them warnings,and avoiding those experts in the peer review system in the future.This paper provides a kind of exploration to analyze on the annual peer review,and might provide a base for improving the system.

关 键 词：自然科学基金 同行评议 专家 区分度 共识度 

分 类 号：Q3[生物学—遗传学] Q811.4