| 马 昭,许芊芊,宋 磊,冯凌子,杨 晓,武治印.科技项目专家评审信用管理机制国际比较及对中国制度建设的启示[J].全球科技经济瞭望,2026,41(1):26~36 |
| 科技项目专家评审信用管理机制国际比较及对中国制度建设的启示 |
| International Comparison of Credit Management Mechanisms in Expert Peer Review for Science and Technology Projects and Implications for Institutional Development in China |
| 投稿时间：2025-11-20 |
| DOI：10.3772/j.issn.1009-8623.2026.01.004 |
| 中文关键词: 专家评审；信用管理；差异研究 |
| 英文关键词: Expert Peer Review; Credit Management; Comparative Study |
| 基金项目: |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 马 昭 | | | 许芊芊 | | | 宋 磊 | | | 冯凌子 | | | 杨 晓 | | | 武治印 | |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 21 |
| 全文下载次数: 25 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 专家评审信用管理是保障学术评价公平性与科学性的重要制度基础。通过对国内外专家评审
信用管理的差异分析，探讨在专家遴选、信用评价、评价质量影响因素、评审激励等方面的不同做法。研究表明，在制度设计上，国外构建起以动态信用档案为核心，融合定量与质性评估的信用评价体系。中国近年来在专家库建设、负面清单管理方面形成了较为系统的制度基础，但仍面临评价标准碎片化、过程欠透明、激励约束机制薄弱等问题。实践运行中，国外借助技术赋能及流程再造降低评审失信风
险，中国在评审过程中更强调刚性制度约束与全流程监督，但在专家行为后评价、利益冲突动态预警等
方面，尚需加强制度供给。基于此，提出构建“制度完善—技术赋能—文化培育”三位一体的专家信用
管理体系建议，以促进学术评审的公平性和科学性，推动科研诚信建设。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Expert reviewer credit management is an important institutional foundation for ensuring the fairness
and scientific validity of academic evaluation. With the increasing frequency of academic activities and intensifying
research competition, concerns about the integrity of peer reviewers have drawn growing attention. This study analyzes
the differences in credit management practices for expert review between China and other countries, focusing on
expert selection, credit evaluation, factors influencing review quality, and incentive mechanisms. The findings indicate
that, in terms of institutional design, international practices have developed a dynamic credit profiling system that
integrates quantitative metrics with qualitative assessments.In recent years,China has established a relatively systematic
institutional foundation in the construction of expert databases and the management of negative lists. However, it still
faces challenges such as fragmented evaluation standards, lack of transparency in review processes, and weak incentive
and accountability mechanisms.At the operational level,many countries have leveraged technological tools and process
reengineering to mitigate risks of misconduct in peer review. China places greater emphasis on rigid institutional
constraints and full-process supervision during the review process. Meanwhile, China needs to enhance its institutional
support in areas such as post-review behavior assessment and dynamic conflict-of-interest monitoring. Based on these
insights, the study proposes a triadic framework for expert credit management-comprising institutional refinement,
technological empowerment,and cultural cultivation-to promote fairness and rigor in academic peer review and advance
the construction of a trustworthy research environment. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
