本文選題：國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目 + 同行評(píng)議�。� 參考：《北京科技大學(xué)》2017年博士論文

【摘要】：國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金是資助我國(guó)基礎(chǔ)研究的重要渠道,同行評(píng)議是科學(xué)界對(duì)科研項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行評(píng)審和對(duì)科研成果進(jìn)行評(píng)估的一種基本方法,而高質(zhì)量的同行評(píng)議是保證遴選出高水平科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目的重要前提。立項(xiàng)階段的同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量,影響著科研基金的配置方向及研究質(zhì)量,并最終對(duì)科學(xué)基金資助效果產(chǎn)生影響。本文以國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目立項(xiàng)環(huán)節(jié)中的同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量控制問題為研究對(duì)象,運(yùn)用科學(xué)共同體、委托代理和程序正義等上述的理論,對(duì)影響同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量的關(guān)鍵性要素的原因進(jìn)行深入分析,采用問卷調(diào)查、深度訪談和實(shí)證分析法,對(duì)其立項(xiàng)階段同行評(píng)議的質(zhì)量控制進(jìn)行研究。本文研究重點(diǎn)內(nèi)容包括：(1)概念界定與問題揭示。界定同行評(píng)議、質(zhì)量控制等核心概念,以實(shí)證調(diào)研、數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)等方法描述目前我國(guó)自然科學(xué)基金立項(xiàng)階段同行評(píng)議的流程、已有的質(zhì)量控制措施,存在的主要問題。(2)對(duì)比研究及經(jīng)驗(yàn)借鑒。通過對(duì)與我國(guó)自然科學(xué)基金機(jī)構(gòu)功能類似、同行評(píng)議體系相對(duì)成熟的幾個(gè)典型國(guó)家的比較分析,提煉出若干可借鑒的核心要素,為反思我國(guó)同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量控制的現(xiàn)行問題提供視角,并為本研究同行評(píng)議指標(biāo)體系的建構(gòu)提供借鑒。(3)在文獻(xiàn)梳理、深度訪談、問卷調(diào)查和國(guó)外經(jīng)驗(yàn)借鑒的基礎(chǔ)上,確立我國(guó)同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量準(zhǔn)則,構(gòu)建同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量指標(biāo)體系。(4)對(duì)建立的質(zhì)量指標(biāo)體系進(jìn)行實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)。運(yùn)用logistic模型對(duì)同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量控制體系進(jìn)行分析,得到影響同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量因素的次序和程度,并確定影響同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量的關(guān)鍵性要素；運(yùn)用科學(xué)共同體、委托代理和程序正義等理論,對(duì)影響同行評(píng)議質(zhì)量的關(guān)鍵性要素的原因進(jìn)行深入分析；對(duì)國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金委提出改進(jìn)的對(duì)策和建議。
[Abstract]:The National Natural Science Foundation of China is an important channel for funding basic research in China. Peer review is a basic method for the scientific community to review scientific research projects and evaluate scientific research results. High-quality peer review is an important prerequisite for the selection of high-level science fund projects. The quality of peer review in the stage of project establishment affects the allocation direction and research quality of scientific research fund, and finally has an impact on the effect of science fund funding. This paper takes the peer review quality control in the project of National Natural Science Foundation as the research object, and applies the theories of scientific community, principal-agent and procedural justice, etc. This paper makes a deep analysis of the key factors influencing the quality of peer review and studies the quality control of peer review in the project stage by means of questionnaire survey, in-depth interview and empirical analysis. The main contents of this paper include the definition of the concept and the revelation of the problem. Defining the core concepts of peer review, quality control and so on, describing the process of peer review in the stage of establishment of natural science fund in China, and the existing quality control measures by means of empirical investigation, data statistics, etc. The main existing problems. (2) Comparative study and experience use for reference. Through the comparative analysis of several typical countries whose functions are similar to those of natural science funds in China and where the peer review system is relatively mature, some core elements that can be used for reference are extracted. In order to reflect on the current problems of peer review quality control in China, and to provide reference for the construction of peer review index system in this study, based on literature review, in-depth interviews, questionnaires and foreign experience. Establish the quality criterion of peer review in our country, construct the quality index system of peer review, and make an empirical test on the established quality index system. This paper analyzes the quality control system of peer review by using logistic model, obtains the order and degree of influencing factors, and determines the key factors that affect the quality of peer review. Based on the theories of principal-agent and procedural justice, this paper makes a thorough analysis of the key factors affecting the quality of peer review, and puts forward some countermeasures and suggestions for improvement of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：N12

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 冷疏影;;同行評(píng)議輔助指派實(shí)驗(yàn)系統(tǒng)研究取得階段性成果[J];中國(guó)科學(xué)基金;2013年03期

2 韓宇;;科學(xué)自治與政府管理的平衡——讀《難有同行的科學(xué)》[J];中國(guó)科學(xué)基金;2012年06期

3 孔紅梅;劉天星;段靖;;同行評(píng)議初探[J];生態(tài)環(huán)境學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

4 倪培根;張守著;;淺談國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金同行評(píng)議專家?guī)斓木S護(hù)與完善[J];中國(guó)科學(xué)基金;2010年01期

5 蕭鳴政;;人才評(píng)價(jià)機(jī)制問題探析[J];北京大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年03期

6 全美儀;劉迎利;;程序正義新釋:內(nèi)涵與選擇[J];四川理工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年05期

7 文庭孝;;科學(xué)評(píng)價(jià)的規(guī)范體系研究[J];科學(xué)學(xué)研究;2008年S1期

8 劉崇俊;王超;;科學(xué)精英社會(huì)化中的優(yōu)勢(shì)累積[J];科學(xué)學(xué)研究;2008年04期

9 楊鋒;梁棵;茍清龍;凌六一;;同行評(píng)議制度缺陷的根源及完善機(jī)制[J];科學(xué)學(xué)研究;2008年03期

10 張彥;;論同行評(píng)議的改進(jìn)[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)研究;2008年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：2012130