Research On Mutual Judgement Review Mode Of Peer Experts In Science Fund Projects

As an important achievement in the reform of national science and technology system,science fund system is one of the main means for government to subsidize basic research.In recent years,the state has paid more and more attention to technological innovation.Therefore,the government's investment in science fund projects has also increased.At the same time,the rise of the national education industry has produced more and more scientific research workers,and the number of scientific research projects has increased.How to evaluate a large number of science fund projects and select the most valuable projects for funding is one of the challenges faced by science fund managers.In recent years,peer review,as the traditional main method of project evaluation of science fund,has been questioned by many researchers.Some studies have pointed out that the validity and impartiality of peer review are worth discussing.Peer experts will hold gender,authority,institution,racial prejudice against applicants because of subjective factors,and even out of selfishness,affecting the fairness and effectiveness of peer review.Therefore,the evaluation of science fund projects deserves our attention and discussion.Through the discussion of the current National Natural Science Foundation of China project evaluation method and peer review process,and the combination of previous scholars' study about scientific fund project review,the current scientific fund project review lacks consensus research on peer review expert evaluation.The design of indicators and the weight of indicators are not reasonable,and the comprehensive research on the expression of peer review information and expert opinions is lacking.Based on the above analysis,this paper proposes “Research on mutual judgement review mode of peer experts in science fund projects”.Firstly,combination of document analysis and theoretical analysis,the National Natural Science Foundation peer review opinion list is used to construct a scientific fund project evaluation index system.Later,it is proposed to use the group AHP method to evaluate the evaluation index weights,among which group AHP The expert weights in the method are synthesized by the similarity weights of the distance-based judgment matrix and the trust weights based on the entropy values.In order to make the expression of expert review opinions more scientific and humanized,this paper proposes that peer experts use interval numbers to evaluate the scores and give text-based evaluation opinions accordingly.In the process of peer review of the science fund project,the evaluation opinions given bythe review experts only represent their personal preferences.After the peer experts evaluate the project,the mutual judgment between the experts is increased,and the weight of experts is obtained by the group recognition of mutual judgement among experts.Finally,based on the idea of solving generalized Fermat points,the Plant Growth Simulation Algorithm is used to obtain the comprehensive evaluation results of peer review experts.The comprehensive results of experts represent the consensus of experts.The project will be selected based on the results of the comprehensive review of each project.In the analysis of the example in Chapter 5,the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method are illustrated by comparison with other common aggregation methods.This paper provides a method to make the scientific fund project review more fair and fair by constructing the evaluation index system of the science fund project,obtaining the weight of the evaluation index,mutual judgment of peer experts,and using the evaluation of expert opinions based on Fermat points.