1989年度植物学科国家自然科学基金项目

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1989年受理的自由申请基金项目4060项,其中植物学科189项;青年基金379项,植物学科15项;地区基金265项,植物学科15项。学科采取通讯评议与同行专家评议相结合,学科评审组专家审议,择优评选出自由申请项目52项,其中2项为学科重点;青年基金5项;地区基金6项。1989年获准的植物学科基金项目,一般都具有较重要学术意义或应用前景的基础性研究课题,不     

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1993年度资助项目介绍

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部于今年7月下旬完成了1993年度面上基金项目和重点基金项目的受理、评议和评审工作。对申请项目的同行评议工作,仍然采用两种方式,有10个学科全部用通讯方式,其他7个学科主要用会议的方式,少量项目通讯评议。各学科的评审会自6月下旬至7月下旬分别在长春、大连、南昌、青岛、厦门和烟台等地召开并圆满     

1987年植物学科国家自然科学基金项目

1987年国家自然科学基金委员会生物科学部共收到来自全国各省、市、自治区480个单位的3341项基金申请项目,其中植物学科受理了152项。经同行专家评议,学科评审,专家审议,最后择优评选出41项为1987年国家自然科学基金资助项目(表1)。1987年获准的植物学科基金项目,一般都是课题有较重要的学术意义或应用前景,     

今年基金评审工作结束,即将在本刊公布资助项目目录

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1989年度基金项目的受理、评议及评审工作至9月底已基本结束。生命科学部今年受理的自由申请基金项目4060项,申请金额20746.27万元;青年基金项目379项,申请金额1554.65万元;地区基金项目265项,申请金额1527.52万元。对申请项目的同行评议工作,由各学科组自行决定采用通讯或会议或两者结合的方式进行。各学科组的评议会及评审会已陆续于6月、8月、9月在北京与烟台顺利结束。10月学部进行了     

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1992年度资助项目介绍

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1992年度面上基金项目和重点基金项目的受理,评议和评审工作已于7月下旬完成。对申请项目的同行评议工作,各学科采用不同的方式:有9个学科全部用通讯方式;其他8个学科主要用会议的方式,少量项目通讯评议。各学科的评审会自6月开始至7月下旬分别在青岛、杭州、西安、威海,长春和哈尔滨等地召开并圆满完成。学部总结后于9月中旬向基金委委务会议汇报,经委务会议审议通过后已于9月下旬向各申请单位发函通知申请项目的审批结果。     

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1990年度资助项目介绍

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1990年度基金项目的受理、评议及评审工作已于7月底完成。对申请项目的同行评议工作,除少量项目用通讯方式外,主要采用会议的方式进行。各学科组的评议会及评审会先后于5至7月在北京圆满结束。8月学部进行了总结并向基金委委务会议汇报。委务会讨论通过后已向各申请单位发函通知申请项目的评审结果。生命科学部1990年度共受理各类基金项目4914项,总申请金额23657.18万元,其中自由     

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1991年度资助项目介绍

国家自然科学基金委员会生命科学部1991年度基金项目的受理、评议和评审工作已于9月初完成。对申请项目的同行评议工作,各学科采用的方式不同,2个学科全部用通讯方式,其他14个学科少量项目通讯评议,多数项目采用会议的方式。各学科的评议工作于8月上旬结束,8月下旬至9月初各学科的评审会同时在北京召开并圆满完成。学部总结后于10月中旬向基金委委务会议汇报。委务会讨论通过后已向各申请单位发函通知申请项日的审批情     

中国科技核心期刊（中国科技论文统计源期刊）收录证书

现代生物医学进展 经过多项学术指标综合评定及同行专家评议推荐，贵刊被收录为“中国科技核心期刊＂（中国科技论文统计源期刊）。     

细胞生物学学科申请八九年度国家自然科学基金项目的评议结果

八九年度国家自然科学基金的申请项目从年初开始受理,同行评议及学科复审分别于5月25日—30日、6月19日—25日在北京举行。本年度共受理本学科面上项目174项,根据“依靠专家、发扬民主、择优支持、公平合理”的原则,经专家反复讨论、评仪,决定资助42项。平均资助强度2.87万元,资助率24.1％(已超出规定的资助率).受理青年基金申请13项,经评议、复审、答辩,决定资助两项。     

为生物磁学学术水平进一步提高而奋斗——祝贺《生物磁学》成为中国科技核心期刊

今年初本刊接到科技部通知“经过对期刊多项科学计量指标的综合定量评定及严格的同行专家评议推荐,贵刊被评定为中国科技论文统计源期刊(中国科技核心期刊)。”这样,本刊所载论文自2004年1月始即被中国科技核心期刊数据库《科技部中国科技论文与引文数据库(CSTPCD)》收录,     

The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies

There is a paucity of data in the literature concerning the validation of the grant application peer review process, which is used to help direct billions of dollars in research funds. Ultimately, this validation will hinge upon empirical data relating the output of funded projects to the predictions implicit in the overall scientific merit scores from the peer review of submitted applications. In an effort to address this need, the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) conducted a retrospective analysis of peer review data of 2,063 applications submitted to a particular research program and the bibliometric output of the resultant 227 funded projects over an 8-year period. Peer review scores associated with applications were found to be moderately correlated with the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects, although a high degree of variability existed in the data. Analysis over time revealed that as average annual scores of all applications (both funded and unfunded) submitted to this program improved with time, the average annual citation output per application increased. Citation impact did not correlate with the amount of funds awarded per application or with the total annual programmatic budget. However, the number of funded applications per year was found to correlate well with total annual citation impact, suggesting that improving funding success rates by reducing the size of awards may be an efficient strategy to optimize the scientific impact of research program portfolios. This strategy must be weighed against the need for a balanced research portfolio and the inherent high costs of some areas of research. The relationship observed between peer review scores and bibliometric output lays the groundwork for establishing a model system for future prospective testing of the validity of peer review formats and procedures.     

Context-Aware Reviewer Assignment for Trust Enhanced Peer Review

Reviewer assignment is critical to peer review systems, such as peer-reviewed research conferences or peer-reviewed funding applications, and its effectiveness is a deep concern of all academics. However, there are some problems in existing peer review systems during reviewer assignment. For example, some of the reviewers are much more stringent than others, leading to an unfair final decision, i.e., some submissions (i.e., papers or applications) with better quality are rejected. In this paper, we propose a context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review. More specifically, in our approach, we first consider the research area specific expertise of reviewers, and the institution relevance and co-authorship between reviewers and authors, so that reviewers with the right expertise are assigned to the corresponding submissions without potential conflict of interest. In addition, we propose a novel cross-assignment paradigm, and reviewers are cross-assigned in order to avoid assigning a group of stringent reviewers or a group of lenient reviewers to the same submission. More importantly, on top of them, we propose an academic CONtext-aware expertise relevanCe oriEnted Reviewer cross-assignmenT approach (CONCERT), which aims to effectively estimate the “true” ratings of submissions based on the ratings from all reviewers, even though no prior knowledge exists about the distribution of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers. The experiments illustrate that compared with existing approaches, our proposed CONCERT approach can less likely assign more than one stringent reviewers or lenient reviewers to a submission simultaneously and significantly reduce the influence of ratings from stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers, leading to trust enhanced peer review and selection, no matter what kind of distributions of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers are.     

Cooperation between referees and authors increases peer review accuracy

Peer review is fundamentally a cooperative process between scientists in a community who agree to review each other''s work in an unbiased fashion. Peer review is the foundation for decisions concerning publication in journals, awarding of grants, and academic promotion. Here we perform a laboratory study of open and closed peer review based on an online game. We show that when reviewer behavior was made public under open review, reviewers were rewarded for refereeing and formed significantly more cooperative interactions (13% increase in cooperation, P = 0.018). We also show that referees and authors who participated in cooperative interactions had an 11% higher reviewing accuracy rate (P = 0.016). Our results suggest that increasing cooperation in the peer review process can lead to a decreased risk of reviewing errors.     

Teleconference versus Face-to-Face Scientific Peer Review of Grant Application: Effects on Review Outcomes

Teleconferencing as a setting for scientific peer review is an attractive option for funding agencies, given the substantial environmental and cost savings. Despite this, there is a paucity of published data validating teleconference-based peer review compared to the face-to-face process.Our aim was to conduct a retrospective analysis of scientific peer review data to investigate whether review setting has an effect on review process and outcome measures.We analyzed reviewer scoring data from a research program that had recently modified the review setting from face-to-face to a teleconference format with minimal changes to the overall review procedures. This analysis included approximately 1600 applications over a 4-year period: two years of face-to-face panel meetings compared to two years of teleconference meetings. The average overall scientific merit scores, score distribution, standard deviations and reviewer inter-rater reliability statistics were measured, as well as reviewer demographics and length of time discussing applications.The data indicate that few differences are evident between face-to-face and teleconference settings with regard to average overall scientific merit score, scoring distribution, standard deviation, reviewer demographics or inter-rater reliability. However, some difference was found in the discussion time.These findings suggest that most review outcome measures are unaffected by review setting, which would support the trend of using teleconference reviews rather than face-to-face meetings. However, further studies are needed to assess any correlations among discussion time, application funding and the productivity of funded research projects.     

Examining the Predictive Validity of NIH Peer Review Scores

The predictive validity of peer review at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not yet been demonstrated empirically. It might be assumed that the most efficient and expedient test of the predictive validity of NIH peer review would be an examination of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications produced from funded projects. The present study used a large dataset to examine the rationale for such a study, to determine if it would satisfy the requirements for a test of predictive validity. The results show significant restriction of range in the applications selected for funding. Furthermore, those few applications that are funded with slightly worse peer review scores are not selected at random or representative of other applications in the same range. The funding institutes also negotiate with applicants to address issues identified during peer review. Therefore, the peer review scores assigned to the submitted applications, especially for those few funded applications with slightly worse peer review scores, do not reflect the changed and improved projects that are eventually funded. In addition, citation metrics by themselves are not valid or appropriate measures of scientific impact. The use of bibliometric indices on their own to measure scientific impact would likely increase the inefficiencies and problems with replicability already largely attributed to the current over-emphasis on bibliometric indices. Therefore, retrospective analyses of the correlation between percentile scores from peer review and bibliometric indices of the publications resulting from funded grant applications are not valid tests of the predictive validity of peer review at the NIH.     

Projects Funded by the Division of Botany （NSFC） in 2005： Retrospect and Prospect

The present paper briefly introduces information about proposals received and funded, statistics and analysis of evaluation of peer review, and supporting strategies and reforms in program reviewing and administration in the Division of Botany at the Natural Science Foundation of China （NSFC） in 2005. A list of general programs and the abstract of key programs funded by this Division in 2005 are also provided.