谈项目立项专家评审中探究式提问手段的应用.pptVIP

On the Use of Probing-Question Approach in Grant Application Peer Reviews 谈项目立项专家评审中探究式提问手段的应用 Ping Sun （孙 平) ISTIC / ORI, MOST Dalian,China· May 21-23, 2012 1. Targeted problems 2. The fuci of relevant researches in China 3. Concrete measures are needed 4. Simple strategies might also be effective 5. Summary 1. Targeted problems “As is the case with any process, peer review is not an infallible system and to a large extent depends on the integrity and competence of the people involved and the degree of editorial oversight and quality assurance of the peer review process itself.” 　　—— A UK House of Commons Committee report Lack of Integrity and competence Agreeing to review an application beyond his/her competence. Entrusting review tasks to someone else without adequate approval. Not disclosing conflict of interest. Irresponsible behaviors, e.g. scores given and comments made are inconsistent; comments made are not based on careful scrutiny of the applications …… A mail reviewer is always right! Characteristics of the applications Extensive presentation? Brief presentation? Theoretically focused? Details included? Focus emphasized? Many factors listed? Possible comments of the reviewers Not focused Lack of in-depth understanding Lack of details Focus to much on tools and methods Other factors ignored Too ambitious, not focused The suspicions of an failed applicant (NSFC now provides full-text comments) The first reviewer seems not read the research proposal carefully. The second reviewer is not familiar with the concepts and contents. The third reviewer is an expert in the field and did read the proposal, but the inquiry made (“previous articles were almost all published on a single journal) is not reasonable. Some causes of the problems Insufficient communication between applicants and reviewers The review process is not transparent, and the outcomes are un-appealable. The supervision of the peer review process is not in place. Personal factors of rev