[Purpose/significance] Aiming at the avoidance problem in the selection of peer review experts for scientific research projects, this paper tries to put forward a set of feasible model methods to determine the avoidance experts, so as to avoid the interference of interpersonal relationship on the evaluation work and ensure the standardization and fairness of scientific research evaluation.[Method/process] Firstly, the paper cooperation relationship between experts and applicants was taken as the entry point, and the cooperation intensity, the depth of co-authors, the direction matching degree and the review performance were taken as the main indicators. Then, the comprehensive weight and modified TOPSIS were used to analyze each index, and the quantitative model of expert avoidance for scientific research projects was constructed. Finally, according to the specified number of members of the expert group, considering the distribution of age, institution, gender, etc., the experts that should be avoided were identified.[Result/conclusion] Through case analysis, it is found that this model effectively avoids the problem of "only cooperation theory" when giving the list of experts to avoid, and has sufficient reasons to avoid, which meets the requirements of expert selection of the Ministry of Science and Technology Management and can provide certain decision support for expert selection.
Dai Shiyu
,
Shi Jin
,
Li Ming
. Research on Expert Avoidance Model of Scientific Research Projects Based on Paper Cooperation Relationship[J]. Library and Information Service, 2021
, 65(18)
: 125
-132
.
DOI: 10.13266/j.issn.0252-3116.2021.18.013
[1] 张琦.学术评价的回避制度研究[D].上海:复旦大学, 2008.
[2] 张志清, 凡艳, 苏顺华.基于SNA的科研项目评审专家选择与回避策略研究[J]. 武汉理工大学学报(信息与管理工程版), 2016, 38(3):367-371.
[3] 朱伟珠, 李春发.基于概念知识网络的"小同行"评议专家遴选方法实证研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2017, 36(7):78-83, 88.
[4] 潘云涛, 苏成, 赵筱媛, 等.专家识别推荐模块技术框架研究[J]. 情报学报, 2016, 35(9):923-931.
[5] 魏屹东.科学活动中利益冲突的英美管理模式及其启示[J]. 科学与社会, 2017, 7(2):70-85.
[6] NICHOLS-CASEBOLT A, MACRINA F L. Current perspectives regarding institutional conflict of interest:commentary on "institutional conflicts of interest in academic research"[J]. Science and engineering ethics, 2019, 25(6):1671-1677.
[7] KONG N H, CHOW P K. Conflict of interest in research-the clinician scientist's perspective[J]. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 2013, 42(11):623-628.
[8] JOHNSON C. Conflict of interest in scientific publications:a historical review and update[J]. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics, 2010, 33(2):81-86.
[9] EPSTEIN A J, BUSCH S H, BUSCH A B, et al. Does exposure to conflict of interest policies in psychiatry residency affect antidepressant prescribing?[J]. Medical care, 2013, 51(2):199-203.
[10] SILVA J, DOBRANSZKI J, HOLLA R, et al. Editors should declare conflicts of interest[J]. Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019, 16(2):279-298.
[11] 王贤慧.面向同行评议的专家社会关系研究[D].北京:中国科学技术信息研究所, 2015.
[12] 李馨.面向科技评价的专家回避制度研究[D].北京:中国科学技术信息研究所, 2014.
[13] 国家自然科学基金委员会.国家自然科学基金条例[EB/OL]. [2021-06-03].http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/publish/portal0/tab471/info70222.htm.
[14] 全国哲学社会科学工作办公室.国家社会科学基金管理办法[EB/OL]. [2021-08-18].http://www.nopss.gov.cn/n/2013/0520/c219644-21542088.html.
[15] 雷雪, 王立学.基于学术关系的同行评议专家回避关系计量研究[J]. 现代情报, 2017, 37(3):32-34.
[16] 王贤慧, 袁军鹏.一种面向社会关系的同行评议方法[J]. 科技管理研究, 2017(23):228-232.
[17] 李江, 李东, 冯培桦, 等.基于专长吻合度、学术影响力与社会关联值的专家推荐模型研究[J]. 情报学报, 2017, 36(4):338-345.
[18] 赵黎明, 徐孝涵, 张卫东.选择同行评议专家的指标体系[J]. 科研管理, 1994(6):17-21.
[19] 马晓光, 连燕华, 沈全锋, 于浩.同行评议中专家识别研究[J]. 研究与发展管理, 2003(3):68-72.
[20] 陈媛, 樊治平, 谢美萍.科研项目同行评议专家水平的评价研究[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2009, 30(10):38-42.
[21] 周建中, 徐芳.国立科研机构同行评议方法的模式比较研究[J]. 科学学研究, 2013, 31(11):1642-1648.
[22] SALTON G. Introduction to modern information retrieval[M]. New York:McGill, 1983:104.
[23] 陈云伟, 邓勇, 陈方, 等.复合合作强度指数构建及应用研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2015, 59(13):96-103.
[24] 贺晓宇.基于TOPSIS的科技项目评审专家信用评价模型研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2020, 40(3):32-38.
[25] 俞立平, 潘云涛, 武夷山.修正TOPSIS及其在科技评价中的应用研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2012, 31(6):103-107. 作者贡献说明:戴石钰:查阅文献, 搜集数据并处理分析, 撰写论文初稿与修改; 石进:提出研究框架, 论文修改与审阅; 李明:论文修改与审阅。
