Recently, the popularity of ScienceNet has been accompanied by the announcement of the National Natural Science Foundation project.At this time of year, the main battlefield for declaration of state funds in universities and research institutes is "a few happy and a few sad, " year after year.Since the National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) is currently the lowest category of projects for which China applies, and some units make such projects a necessary condition for promotion (which I think is absurd).Therefore, at the end of March every year, the National Foundation Commission declaration hall always presents a spectacular scene of "huge rush".As a retiree, I didn't get approval for a project (the only way retirees can apply under the National Natural Science Foundation Act), and I'm waiting for expert advice.Besides, I have some money to keep the follow-up research going.The intensity of scientific research after formal retirement is greatly reduced, which belongs to the soft landing process of adapting to retirement.The hot topic was caused by a blogger's outstanding student who failed to apply for the Youth Fund program for the second consecutive time.There are also blog friends to provide someone 5 times missed.The best record I know is the eighth time that an old professor who participated in the evaluation personally told me.Speaking at the conference, he said he had applied eight times in a row to show his enthusiasm for the National Natural Science Foundation.In addition, the War of Resistance was only eight years old, so the recommendation was passed this time, and the experts felt that his opinion was reasonable and eventually the project was approved.When discussing the fairness of the evaluation of projects under the National Fund, the pros and cons seem to be in line, and it is worth our reflection.
I have declared six projects of the National Natural Science Foundation and five have been approved.The course of the first project declared in 1988 is described in detail in my blog article "I am a member of the New Science Academy, Sunjun."applicants for academic qualifications.Because we, the five-year-old students (who graduated from 1966-1970), passed the age limit of the National Foundation's foundation in 1986, we had no choice but to apply for public funds.Items 3, 4 and 5 are applied as associate professors, professors and doctoral supervisors respectively, and the third is co-chaired with Professor Wang Baoren (the two of our declared projects were merged in the same year, and no such form has been found since).The sixth project, which was applied as a retiree, has not yet been approved.So it might be meaningful to recall how my fund project was approved.
I was the last of the five students (1970).One blogger wrote in my blog post, 'You went to college in 1965, and you only went to college for one year.I replied: It was actually less than a year since the lower company had been in the army for 38 days in early 1966 and rehearsed for a month for the National Day in September 1965.Therefore, I rely on the foundation of the old high school and adhere to the concept of lifelong learning to this day.Of course, it's a bit luckier than anyone who's done it in the Cultural Revolution throughout the middle school.The fairness of the national fund evaluation process was reflected in the fact that ordinary university teachers like me were able to receive multiple national fund projects in a row.
There are several cases in which I know that the evaluation of state-funded projects is impartial: 1. Only a very few of the 20 young people with Ph.D. degrees in our college have not yet received Youth Fund projects.A young person who has not yet obtained the project is really poor in scientific research ability, research experience and achievement record are not good. 2. Although I know a Yangtze scholar and Jieqing have failed to apply for the project three times in a row.This shows that most researchers can receive funding from the National Natural Science Foundation, provided that scientific research is done well and has a good record of results, and that the fairness of evaluation by the National Natural Science Foundation is mainstream.
However, we must acknowledge that there must also be certain injustices in the process of evaluating national funds projects.We often say that fairness is a relatively grey concept, for example, in the evaluation of projects under the National Fund.To evaluate whether a fund project application can be funded, the expression of the fund law is a number of basic principles, specifically to be operated by experts based on their own understanding.In my review, I insist on several basic points: the scientific significance of the selection of topics and the research status of peer studies (e.g., the relevance and timeliness of the cited literature), the rationality of the summary of scientific issues (i.e.But the actual evaluation depends on the judge's preference.Some value the applicant's overseas experience; others value the applicant's PhD experience; others value the applicant's research platform and conditions; some value the applicant's institutions and important institutions.I heard that a key talent declaration fund introduced by two universities entered the defense, the results were good, but did not give it, because experts believe that your university's research platform can not guarantee that you can complete the project.In fact, people can use the equipment and conditions of domestic related units to complete the project-related test analysis.The equipment of these units is also bought by the state money.As for the project topic selection, that is more insightful, because only a conscientious and responsible small peer can carry on a targeted analysis of the topic selection.Modern science and technology development makes subjects more delicate and cross-disciplinary factors, making small peers relatively few, most of which are peer review by China-Large.Therefore, it is possible to summarize the judge's mindset by saying, "You are right, wrong, right, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong."In my view, these aspects are still based on the differences in the judges' perceptions and cannot be counted as academic corruption.
Of course, I am aware of some unfair assessments.With the transformation of the national economy, the corruption of public officials will erode the evaluation of state fund projects. This is an objective fact, which cannot be denied.An expert said in front of me, 'If I had graduated, I would have ranked him first.' An overseas scholar applied to a university in China for five years, averaging less than a month a year.A scholar from a prestigious university was reported by Fang Zhouzi after receiving Jieqing (non-B category) without returning home completely.What's more, some academic peers lack basic academic ethics, maliciously build their own academic circles, and even if your application is well-written and well-based, he can give approval to the grant, but only give "good" grades, which is actually negative.It is not yet easy to determine whether the reviewers should be blacklisted.Avoidance measures are not very good in the evaluation of key projects, such as academic circles, units, teachers and students, and collaborators, etc. are not strictly avoided in the evaluation of key projects or projects.There are also some academic corruption cited by bloggers, which need not be enumerated.
I sincerely hope that if young people try to do their best in scientific research, they will surely produce good results. I believe that God will be touched someday by the motto "Diligence makes up for bad work and Heaven rewards hard work".It's my old saying: Speak with results and win with strength.Finally, I congratulate the young people who have won this year's fund project, and encourage those who have failed to achieve their goals, to persevere, to fight repeatedly, and to insist on winning.