国外人文社科研究趋势及成果评价制度比较——以美欧日为例

通过对当前国外人文社科研究发展趋势分析，对美欧日等国成果评价制度进行比较，以期启迪我国人文社科发展，为健全成果评价制度提供经验借鉴。通过分析比较，提出以改进考核方式、完善成果评价体系和建立健全小同行评议专家库等措施，来完善我国人文社科成果评价制度。     

注重组稿和审稿提高学报质量

组稿是保证稿源的重要条件，也是保证稿件质量的重要环节，同时亦是发现作者和培养编辑的重要途径；而审稿则是保证学报学术质量的关键。重视组稿和审稿，对提高学报质量有着极其重要的意义。     

科研项目评估中的同行评议方法研究

目前科学研究项目的评估已经得到了世界各国政府和科研管理部门的重视,并在一 定程度上开展了此方面的理论研究与实践,科研管理部门和资源分析部门一般将此评估视为 一种有效的管理手段。同行评议方法是在科研项目评估中使用较多的方法,公正高效的同行 评议方法是保证科学研究质量的基础。文章介绍了科研项目评估中同行评议方法的地位和使 用现状,通过对同行评议中的规则和潜规则的讨论,包括权威的影响以及匿名制等的影响, 为制定科研政策提供依据。     

Evaluation of scientific merit in col laboratories: A new look at an old question

What role can information science play in promoting public understanding of science and technology? In order to answer this question, it is important to understand the new perspective which is emerging for research in the information science field. Internet, and the information superhighways announced both in Europe and the United States, are increasingly focusing attention on computer‐mediated communication within research communities. “Collaboratories”; is the name given to work aimed at using computer‐based technologies to help promote the social processes of knowledge production. One goal of information science lies in efforts to measure the contribution of technical devices to knowledge production practices. This is called infometrics research; it requires a clear understanding of how the social system of science regulates information flows to promote these practices.     

Problems with Traditional Science Publishing and Finding a Wider Niche for Post-Publication Peer Review

Science affects multiple basic sectors of society. Therefore, the findings made in science impact what takes place at a commercial level. More specifically, errors in the literature, incorrect findings, fraudulent data, poorly written scientific reports, or studies that cannot be reproduced not only serve as a burden on tax-payers’ money, but they also serve to diminish public trust in science and its findings. Therefore, there is every need to fortify the validity of data that exists in the science literature, not only to build trust among peers, and to sustain that trust, but to reestablish trust in the public and private academic sectors that are witnessing a veritable battle-ground in the world of science publishing, in some ways spurred by the rapid evolution of the open access (OA) movement. Even though many science journals, traditional and OA, claim to be peer reviewed, the truth is that different levels of peer review occur, and in some cases no, insufficient, or pseudo-peer review takes place. This ultimately leads to the erosion of quality and importance of science, allowing essentially anything to become published, provided that an outlet can be found. In some cases, predatory OA journals serve this purpose, allowing papers to be published, often without any peer review or quality control. In the light of an explosion of such cases in predatory OA publishing, and in severe inefficiencies and possible bias in the peer review of even respectable science journals, as evidenced by the increasing attention given to retractions, there is an urgent need to reform the way in which authors, editors, and publishers conduct the first line of quality control, the peer review. One way to address the problem is through post-publication peer review (PPPR), an efficient complement to traditional peer-review that allows for the continuous improvement and strengthening of the quality of science publishing. PPPR may also serve as a way to renew trust in scientific findings by correcting the literature. This article explores what is broadly being said about PPPR in the literature, so as to establish awareness and a possible first-tier prototype for the sciences for which such a system is undeveloped or weak.     

Indeed: Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant

NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) offers Discovery Grants averaging Can$30,000 to about 70% of its applicants. If the total budget for these grants were evenly divided amongst the 10,000 people qualified to apply, the average grant size would be Can$41,000. The additional costs of writing and reviewing grant applications in our previous analysis only serve to accentuate the loss of funds that could otherwise be spent on the research itself. Baseline grants for the early stages of research, to all qualified researchers, would significantly enhance innovation of Canadian scientists.     

Open Review of Science Publications

Publication of scientific research in print is traditionally peer reviewed anonymously prior to publication, which is a time-tested process but has serious limitations. The advent of the Internet permits postpublication open review online after minimal review by the editors or the author-selected reviewers, which can be quick, that permits the authors to revise the content. Most meritorious articles published online may be selected for publication in print as annual or biennial collections.     

论人文社会科学研究项目的前评价

人文社会科学项目研究是人文社会科学发展的重要环节.人文社会科学项目前评价对于优化资源配置,提高科研经费的使用效率,促进公平竞争,鼓励人文社会科学创新研究具有重要意义.文章对人文社会科学项目前评价的特点、评价指标体系和主要方法进行了探讨,指出人文社会科学项目前评价可以将同行专家评审与比较评价法相结合,从而对申请项目进行择优立项.     

论大学学术同行评议中的利益冲突——以委托代理理论为视角

学术同行评议是一种涉及价值判断的评价活动,是对某项学术工作的水平或重要性的鉴定。从委托代理理论来看,大学学术同行评议形成了一种嵌套式的委托代理关系结构。同行评议委托代理关系中的博弈模型表明,评审管理机构与评议专家很有可能因各自私人利益产生冲突。大学学术同行评议利益冲突的产生,源于委代双方的信息不对称、激励不相容以及契约不完备。因此,增加信息成本以防范利益冲突的可能性、注重职业伦理的"软"约束力作用及建立以奖惩机制为基础的同行评议反评估制度是防范利益冲突问题的有效策略。