[目的/意义] 我国科研项目绩效评价仍存在重数量轻质量、分类评价尚未落实、忽视影响力评价等问题，总结国外科研项目绩效评价的实践经验，探索我国科研项目绩效评价的优化策略，对于深化科研评价、实现国家创新驱动发展意义重大。[方法/过程] 采用网络调研法和案例分析法，梳理各国主要的科研评估框架及绩效评价实践，从评价方法、评价内容和评价指标等方面提炼总结特点与经验，结合我国“三评”改革后科研项目绩效评价的现状，提出科研项目绩效评价优化策略建议。[结果/结论] 我国应构建面向绩效评价的科研项目分类体系，丰富项目成果评价维度，重视项目的创新价值和贡献评估，同时在多方联动建设科研项目数据平台的基础上，探索数据驱动的智能化评价方法。
[Purpose/Significance] There are still problems in scientific research project performance evaluation in China, such as valuing quantity over quality, not implementing classification evaluation, and ignoring impact evaluation. Summarizing the practical experience of performance evaluation of scientific research projects abroad and exploring the domestic optimization strategy of scientific research project performance evaluation is of great significance for deepening scientific research evaluation and realizing national innovation-driven development. [Method/Process] Using network investigation and case analysis methods, the paper combed the main scientific research evaluation frameworks and performance evaluation practices in various countries, extracted and summarized the characteristics and experience from evaluation methods, evaluation contents and evaluation indicators. Based on the current situation of performance evaluation of scientific research projects after “three evaluations” reform, the paper put forward suggestions for optimizing the performance evaluation of scientific research projects. [Result/Conclusion] We should build a performance evaluation-oriented scientific research project classification system, enrich the evaluation dimensions of project achievements, pay attention to the innovation value and contribution assessment of projects, and explore data-driven intelligent evaluation methods on the basis of the multi-party linkage construction of scientific research project data platform.
[1] GILLETT R. Pitfalls in assessing research performance by grant income[J]. Scientometrics, 1991, 22(2):253-263.
[2] LAUDEL G. Is external research funding a valid indicator for research performance[J]. Research evaluation, 2005, 14(1):27- 34.
[3] MONGEON P, BRODEUR C, BEAUDRY C, et al. Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns[J]. Research evaluation, 2016, 25(4):396-404.
[4] HWANG S. Research quality, efficiency and project funding in the Swedish Higher Education sector[EB/OL].[2023- 06-08]. http://hh.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1268753/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
[5] 曲建升, 黄珂敏. 开放科学的发展逻辑与未来使命[J]. 科学通报, 2022, 67(36):4312-4325.
[6] 王楠, 罗珺文. 高校科研成果非学术影响评估的比较研究——基于对美、英、荷三国科研评估框架的考察[J]. 科技管理研究, 2022, 42(19):70-75.
[7] 张强, 周志刚. 有限绩效与多维评价:国外科研绩效拨款机制及其实践——以英国、澳大利亚、新西兰为例[J]. 外国教育研究, 2022, 49(6):111-128.
[8] 王楠, 罗珺文, 王红燕. 荷兰科研评估的模式与特点——以《标准化评估指南(2015-2021)》为分析对象[J]. 高教探索, 2018(10):50-55.
[9] 马千淳, 王楠. 美国STAR METRICS项目的实施与评价——兼论对我国科技政策与科研评估的启示[J]. 科技管理研究, 2020, 40(21):73-79.
[10] 贺佳欢. 文本挖掘和模糊AHP在科研项目绩效评价中的研究[D]. 北京:北京交通大学, 2020.
[11] 日本医学研究与开发署. 研究成果展开推进课[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://www.amed.go.jp/program/list/19/02/index.html.
[12] REF 2021.Panel criteria and working methods[EB/OL].[2023- 06-08]. https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1450/ref-2019_02-panelcriteria-and-working-methods.pdf.
[13] VSNU, KNAW, NWO. Strategy evaluation protocol 2021- 2027[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://storage.knaw.nl/2022-06/SEP_2021-2027.pdf.
[14] Australian Research Council. ERA 2018 evaluation handbook[R]. Canberra:Australian Government, 2018.
[15] NSF. Impact assessments of NSF awards to the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine[R/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://vdocuments.mx/impact-assessments-ofnsf-awards-to-the-national-academies-of-science-2018-08-24.html?page=2.
[16] European Commission. Horizon 2020 indicators:assessing the results and impact of Horizon 2020[R]. Luxembourg:Publication Office of the European Union, 2015.
[17] WOLF B, LINDENTHAL T, SZERENCSITS M, et al. Evaluating research beyond scientific impact how to include criteria for productive interactions and impact on practice and society[J]. GAIA-ecological perspectives on science and society, 2013, 22(2):104-114.
[18] REF 2021. Impact case study database[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/impact.
[19] REF 2021. Environment submissions database[EB/OL].[2023- 06-08]. https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/environment.
[20] ARC. ERA-SEER 2023 technical specifications[EB/OL].[2023- 06-08]. https://www.arc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-07/eraseer_2023_technical_specifications.pdf.
[21] National Institutes of Health. Star metrics:new way to measure the impact of federally funded research[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/star-metricsnew-way-measure-impact-federally-funded-research.
[22] KAKEN[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/.
[23] AMEDfind[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://amedfind.amed.go.jp/amed/index.html.
[24] Researchfish[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://researchfish.com/.
[25] 于笑潇. 英国科研绩效评价的特点和启示[J]. 全球科技经济瞭望, 2020, 35(2):56-62.
[26] 罗旭. 中组部中宣部科技部等十二家单位联合改进科研项目评审人才评价机构评估[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://epaper.gmw.cn/gmrb/html/2015-01/30/nw.D110000gmrb_20150130_4-01.htm.
[27] 中共中央办公厅国务院办公厅印发《关于深化项目评审、人才评价、机构评估改革的意见》[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-07/03/content_5303251.htm.
[28] 国务院关于优化科研管理提升科研绩效若干措施的通知[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2018-07/24/content_5308787.htm.
[29] 科技部办公厅关于印发《国家重点研发计划项目综合绩效评价工作规范(试行)》的通知[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2018-12/31/content_5446186.htm.
[30] 国务院办公厅关于完善科技成果评价机制的指导意见[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2021/content_5631817.htm.
[31] 科学技术部. GB/T 22900-2022. 科学技术研究项目评价通则[S]. 北京:中国标准出版社, 2022.
[32] 徐芳, 李晓轩. 科技评价改革十年评述[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2022, 37(5):603-612.
[33] 徐芳, 李晓轩, 李超平, 等. 关于"三评"改革效果的调查分析[J]. 科学与社会, 2019, 9(3):22-33.
[34] 席月玉, 韩健. 优化高等学校科研项目绩效评价体系的思考[J]. 市场周刊, 2021, 34(4):114-115, 120.
[35] 马瑞. 国内科研项目评估研究态势分析——基于文献计量学视角[J]. 时代金融, 2021(2):80-83.
[36] 李林, 孙琼. 科研项目绩效评价研究[J]. 中国科技信息, 2018(6):108-110.
[37] 陈敏, 王轶. 破"五唯"政策视角下的学术成果评价研究[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2021, 27(4):60-70.
[38] 余利川, 李佳源, 段鑫星. 大学学术评价的技术治理"失灵"与理性复归[J]. 西南大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 48(3):171-183.
[39] 冯海燕, 许超. 北京市自然科学基金项目绩效评价[J]. 中国高校科技, 2019(11):37-40.
[40] 邱均平, 张裕晨, 周子番. 新时代我国科研评价体系重构中必须处理好八大关系[J]. 中国图书馆学报, 2021, 47(1):47-60.
[41] 陈敏, 刘佐菁, 苏帆. "三评"改革两周年回顾:取得成效、存在问题与对策建议[J]. 科技管理研究, 2021, 41(8):43-49.
[42] 孙浩林, 张翼燕, 刘旭. 面向"无人区创新"的科研项目立项和管理机制研究——基于国内外实践经验的分析[J/OL]. 世界科技研究与发展:1-13[2023-06-08]. https://doi.org/10.16507/j.issn.1006-6055.2022.09.004.
[43] SCHERER F M, HARHOFF D. Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes[J]. Research policy, 2000, 29(4/5):559-566.
[44] 韩志凌, 李柏村, 肖小溪, 等. 美国联邦政府资助和管理阿尔茨海默病研究项目的实践与启示[J]. 中国科学院院刊, 2023, 38(2):219-229.
[45] 宋歌, 孙建军. 科研项目学术质量评价关键问题研究[J]. 图书与情报, 2016(5):105-109, 104.
[46] 宋歌, 孙建军. 科研项目学术创新力评价方法与实证[J]. 科技管理研究, 2017, 37(6):44-50.
[47] 王忠, 文宇峰, 孙玉芳, 等. 创新质量和贡献导向下科研项目绩效评价体系研究[J]. 管理科学, 2021, 34(1):28-37.
[48] TERESA P, BAKER M J, ROSA S, et al. Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact:a review[J]. Research evaluation, 2014, 23(1):21-32.
[49] LIMA G D M R, WOOD T. The social impact of research in business and public administration[J]. Revista de administração de empresas, 2014, 54(4):458-463.
[50] 李贺, 杜杏叶. 基于知识元的学术论文内容创新性智能化评价研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2020, 64(1):93-104.
[51] ZHENG H, PEE L G, ZHANG D. Societal impact of research:a text mining study of impact types[J]. Scientometrics, 2021, 126(9):7397-7417.
[52] 陈铭. 国际科技期刊论文开放获取现状比较研究[J]. 数字图书馆论坛, 2022(7):33-42.
[53] 陈传夫, 蒋子可. 财政资助的基础研究论文强制性开放获取政策构建研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2022, 41(12):164-169, 148.
[54] 刘洋. 国家科研论文和科技信息高端交流平台发布,第一阶段建设任务上线[EB/OL].[2023-06-08]. https://new.qq.com/rain/a/20221229A08SAM00.html.
