基金三年研究项目同行评审结果分析与评价

Kangda Yu, X. Zhang, Xu Zhang, Ruimin Guo, Chang Xiao, Wanling Wu, Xiaodi Hao, Qing Shen, Wei Cao, Ruihua Sun
{"title":"基金三年研究项目同行评审结果分析与评价","authors":"Kangda Yu, X. Zhang, Xu Zhang, Ruimin Guo, Chang Xiao, Wanling Wu, Xiaodi Hao, Qing Shen, Wei Cao, Ruihua Sun","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1006-1924.2019.02.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nBased on the three years’ peer review data of a project fund, the results of fund peer review were analyzed and evaluated, to provide references for further improvement of the peer review and management. \n \n \nMethods \nBased on the fund′s peer review results of 2145 projects in three years, descriptive statistics, single-item identification index were adopted, as well as RJ normality test, t-test and other statistical methods, to analyze and assess the overall data of fund, project categories, individual scores, etc. \n \n \nResults \nThe score distribution of the three year peer review project of the fund is almost normal distribution, and the overall consistency of peer review shows a better trend. The analysis shows that the peer review experts of the fund have better consistency in terms of project innovation, rationality and characteristics. While there were differences in the peer review of applicability. \n \n \nConclusions \nThe three year peer review data of the fund show that three years' evaluation results are reliable, reasonable, and the quality of evaluation is good, showing a better development trend in both project quality and expert consistency. \n \n \nKey words: \nPeer review; Analysis and evaluation; Research project","PeriodicalId":59555,"journal":{"name":"中华医学科研管理杂志","volume":"32 1","pages":"97-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis and evaluation of peer review results of a fund’s three year research project\",\"authors\":\"Kangda Yu, X. Zhang, Xu Zhang, Ruimin Guo, Chang Xiao, Wanling Wu, Xiaodi Hao, Qing Shen, Wei Cao, Ruihua Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1006-1924.2019.02.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nBased on the three years’ peer review data of a project fund, the results of fund peer review were analyzed and evaluated, to provide references for further improvement of the peer review and management. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nBased on the fund′s peer review results of 2145 projects in three years, descriptive statistics, single-item identification index were adopted, as well as RJ normality test, t-test and other statistical methods, to analyze and assess the overall data of fund, project categories, individual scores, etc. \\n \\n \\nResults \\nThe score distribution of the three year peer review project of the fund is almost normal distribution, and the overall consistency of peer review shows a better trend. The analysis shows that the peer review experts of the fund have better consistency in terms of project innovation, rationality and characteristics. While there were differences in the peer review of applicability. \\n \\n \\nConclusions \\nThe three year peer review data of the fund show that three years' evaluation results are reliable, reasonable, and the quality of evaluation is good, showing a better development trend in both project quality and expert consistency. \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nPeer review; Analysis and evaluation; Research project\",\"PeriodicalId\":59555,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华医学科研管理杂志\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"97-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华医学科研管理杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1006-1924.2019.02.005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华医学科研管理杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1006-1924.2019.02.005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的根据某项目基金三年的同行评审数据,对基金同行评审结果进行分析和评价,为进一步改进同行评审和管理提供参考。方法根据基金三年2145个项目的同行评审结果,采用描述性统计、单项识别指数以及RJ正态性检验、t检验等统计方法,对基金整体数据、项目类别、个人得分、,等。结果该基金三年期同行评审项目的得分分布几乎为正态分布,同行评审的总体一致性呈现出较好的趋势。分析表明,该基金的同行评审专家在项目创新性、合理性和特色方面具有较好的一致性。虽然在适用性的同行评审中存在差异。结论该基金三年的同行评审数据表明,三年的评审结果可靠、合理,评审质量良好,在项目质量和专家一致性方面都呈现出较好的发展趋势。关键词:同行评审;分析和评估;研究项目
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis and evaluation of peer review results of a fund’s three year research project
Objective Based on the three years’ peer review data of a project fund, the results of fund peer review were analyzed and evaluated, to provide references for further improvement of the peer review and management. Methods Based on the fund′s peer review results of 2145 projects in three years, descriptive statistics, single-item identification index were adopted, as well as RJ normality test, t-test and other statistical methods, to analyze and assess the overall data of fund, project categories, individual scores, etc. Results The score distribution of the three year peer review project of the fund is almost normal distribution, and the overall consistency of peer review shows a better trend. The analysis shows that the peer review experts of the fund have better consistency in terms of project innovation, rationality and characteristics. While there were differences in the peer review of applicability. Conclusions The three year peer review data of the fund show that three years' evaluation results are reliable, reasonable, and the quality of evaluation is good, showing a better development trend in both project quality and expert consistency. Key words: Peer review; Analysis and evaluation; Research project
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3322
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信