Recently, the hot spot of ScienceNet came into being with the announcement of the National Natural Science Foundation project. At this time of year, there is always a scene of "several joys and several sorrows" in the main battlefield of national fund declaration in Colleges and universities and scientific research institutes, year after year and again. Because the National Natural Science Foundation project is the project category with the lowest application threshold in China, and some units take this kind of project as a necessary condition for promoting professional titles (I think this is an absurd provision). Therefore, at the end of March every year, the application Hall of the State Fund Commission always presents a spectacular scene of "flocking". As a retiree, a project I applied for has not been approved (according to the National Natural Science Foundation law, this is the only way for retirees to apply for a project). I am calm and waiting for the opinions of experts. Besides, I still have some funds to maintain the operation of follow-up research. After formal retirement, the scientific research intensity is greatly reduced, which belongs to a soft landing process to adapt to retirement life. This hot topic was caused by an outstanding student of a blog friend who failed to apply for the youth fund project twice in a row. Some bloggers provided that someone failed five times. The highest record I know is the 8th time. An old professor who participated in the evaluation personally told me this information. In his speech at the meeting, he said that people have applied for eight times in a row, which shows his enthusiasm for the National Natural Science Foundation of China. In addition, the war of resistance against Japan was only eight years, so it was proposed to pass this time. Later, experts thought his opinions were reasonable, and finally the project was approved. When discussing whether the national fund project review is fair or not, both positive and negative opinions seem to be pertinent and worthy of our deep consideration.

I applied for 6 NSFC projects and 5 were approved. The process of the first project declared in 1988 is described in detail in my blog post "documentary on the communication between me and Shanjun, an academician of new science"

The second project is the general fund for my undergraduate degree as a lecturer. Because we students of the older five years (refer to those who graduated from 1966-1970) exceeded the age limit of the 35-year-old youth fund when the State Foundation Commission was established in 1986, we can only apply for general funds. Items 3, 4 and 5 are applied as associate professor, professor and doctoral supervisor respectively. Item 3 is co chaired with Professor Wang Baoren (our two application projects were merged in that year, but there was no such form later). The sixth project is applied for as a retiree and has not been approved yet. So it may be meaningful to recall and summarize the approval process of my fund project.

I am the last of the five old students (1970). A blogger once left a message in my related blog that you went to college in 1965, then you only went to college for one year. My reply: in fact, it was less than a year, because the company became a soldier for 38 days in early 1966 and rehearsed the National Day parade for one month in September 1965. Therefore, I rely on the foundation of old high school and adhere to the concept of lifelong learning. Of course, they are luckier than those who completed the whole middle school in the cultural revolution. The fact that ordinary university teachers with "background" like me were able to receive a number of national fund project grants continuously reflected the fairness of the national fund evaluation process at that time.

As far as I know, the basic fairness of the national fund project evaluation is also reflected in several cases: 1. Only a few of the about 20 young people with doctoral degrees in our college have not received the youth fund project. Last year, our college received 8 youth funds at one time. The young people who have not obtained the project do belong to those with poor scientific research ability, and their scientific research experience and achievement record are not very good; 2. Although a Changjiang Scholar and outstanding youth I know failed to apply for three consecutive times (because he really has no background and his tutor is an ordinary Professor) and was approved for the fourth time, due to the good follow-up research and fruitful results, the "Matthew effect" in scientific research was produced, and the subsequent funding projects continued until he obtained major fund projects and key fund projects; 3. I know that most researchers who have done well in scientific research in their counterparts from other units can be approved in time, although individual experiences are slightly tortuous. This shows that as long as scientific research is done well and has a good record of achievements, most researchers can obtain NSFC funding, which also shows that the impartiality of NSFC evaluation belongs to the mainstream.

However, we must admit that there must be some injustice in the process of national fund project evaluation. We often say that fairness is relative. For example, there are still some gray concepts in the process of national fund project evaluation. The expression of the fund law is some basic principles for evaluating whether a fund project application can be funded, which must be operated by experts according to their own understanding. I insist on several basic points during the review: whether the scientific significance of the topic selection and the investigation of peer research are in place (such as the pertinence and timeliness of the Cited Literature), and whether the summary of scientific problems is reasonable (i.e. part I of the application); Design research route and pertinence of key problems; Research conditions (platform); The applicant's research experience (for the youth fund, it mainly depends on his doctoral experience) and foundation; For general fund projects, the discipline structure of the members of the project team should also be considered. But in the actual review, it depends on the preferences of the reviewers. Some people like the applicant's overseas experience; Some people like the applicant's doctoral experience; Some people value the scientific research platform and conditions of the applicant unit; Some value whether the applicant unit is a key university or an important institute; Others pay attention to the influence of the tutor during the applicant's doctoral period (from this year, it is required that the name of the tutor must be listed in the profile of the applicant and members. Two students of one academician have joined the middle-aged and youth fund at the same time this year). I heard that a talent introduced by a second university applied for the key fund and entered the defense. The results were very good, but they didn't give it in the end. The reason is that experts think that the scientific research platform of your school can't guarantee whether you can successfully complete the project. In fact, people can use the equipment and conditions of relevant domestic units to complete the relevant test and analysis of the project. The equipment of these units is also bought with state money. As for the topic selection of the project, there are different opinions, because only serious and responsible peers can make targeted analysis on the topic selection. The development of modern science and technology makes the disciplines more refined and interdisciplinary, so that there are relatively few small peers, most of which are Chinese University peer reviews. Therefore, an old saying can be used: "if you say you are right, you are right, and if you are wrong, you are right; Say you are wrong, right or wrong "to summarize the reviewer's mentality. In my opinion, these aspects are still based on the differences in the understanding of reviewers, which can not be regarded as academic corruption.

Of course, I also know some unfair reviews. With the country's economic transformation, the corruption of officials in society will also erode the special evaluation of national funds, which is an objective fact that can not be denied. An expert said in front of me that if my graduated student's application came to me that year, I must rank him first; An overseas scholar applied to a domestic university for five years and came to the school for less than a month every year. However, he successively obtained one key fund and one general fund. When the last two projects were completed, he did not see any decent results. A scholar from a famous university was reported by Fang Zhouzi as a outstanding youth (not class B) without completely returning home. More importantly, some academic peers lack basic academic ethics and maliciously establish their own academic circles to take care of each other. Even if your application is well written and has a good foundation, they can also give their opinions on agreeing to grant in the review, but only give a "good" grade, which is actually a negative opinion. In this case, it is not easy to judge whether it should be included in the blacklist of reviewers. Avoidance measures are not well done in the evaluation of some important projects. For example, academic circles, units, teachers, students and partners are not strictly avoided in the evaluation of outstanding youth, key projects or major projects. There are also some academic corruption phenomena listed by bloggers, which do not need to be listed one by one.

I sincerely hope that young people will try their best to do their own scientific research first, and they will certainly produce good results. I believe that the proverb "diligence can make up for weakness, and God will reward diligence" will move God one day. Or my old saying: speak with results and win with strength. Finally, I congratulate the young people who have won the fund project this year. At the same time, I encourage the young people who have not achieved their wishes to make persistent efforts, lose and fight again and again, and adhere to a certain victory.