System of peer review of the effectiveness of reflection

Paper Keywords: Peer review and improve the mechanism influencing factors
Abstract: This paper examine and reflect on the implementation of the peer review mechanism of its analysis of the defects, summarize, and suggest improvements based on this approach to improve the effectiveness of peer review mechanism.

Expressed as peer-reviewed English Pee: Review. "Peer" means the same qualifications, the person with the ability, "Review" means identification of the ground or carefully review or inspection. Peer review system is a long history of Research evaluation mechanism is widely used in outcome evaluations, job evaluation, project funding, papers published, institutional assessment, Research evaluation activities, in the selection of outstanding achievements in optimizing resource allocation, to grasp the direction of scientific Research has made remarkable achievements in promoting scientific Research institutions, sustained, made outstanding contributions to the healthy development of the world scientific community generally agree that an evaluation system. However, the peer review mechanism is not perfect. With the application of the promotion and in-depth, more and more apparent the shortcomings of its own, along with the praise of the same , reviewed the results and quality of the academic community has also been questioned.

Peer review as an evaluation mechanism. Its essence is reviewed independently of the main objects of evaluation made by value judgments. Peer review of scientific Research, been able to give full play to the advantages of autonomy, but there are also subjective risk. Peer review as a scientific evaluation methods were introduced to China time is not long, is still in the initial stage of development, there are many problems in the operation. be traced mainly in the consultative council of experts and mechanisms of these two aspects.

First, the council of experts
Experts as the main consultative council, the council conclusions drawn from the object is to make value judgments council, reflecting the evaluation of quality. However. Due to several factors, makes the comments of experts misconduct, peer review ineffective.

1, subjective factors. Consultative experts as interest, will, values, ways of thinking between the subjective factors, even if the comments are the same object. Its academic value, practical significance, innovation, research methods, research goals feasibility assessment will be differences. In addition, the appraisal experts reviewed the standard level of understanding and grasp the scale also vulnerable to subjective factors, led experts to comment on the different objects used inconsistent standards and scale, resulting in the unjust comments.

2, the knowledge structure. Consultative expert evaluation of objects is based on a scientific assessment of their knowledge structure and research experience. According to the different knowledge structure, peer-peer can be divided into large and small counterparts. And comment objects, in research, study to study the problems are more identical or similar peer experts are small, and the council objects belonging to the same great subject though, but in research, study, research questions do not belong to a large interconnected peer experts. little knowledge of the structure as close to peer Review objects, understanding and awareness of the object to the comments of innovative content and meaning and value of the outcome, can make an objective assessment of council objects: large peer knowledge structure because the defects could not make an objective appraisal of the evaluation object.

3, the research paradigm. American philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn (T �� S �� Kuhn) In "" Science Revolution in the structure of>> a book, proposed a "paradigm" (Paradigm) concept and the paradigm as recognized by the scientific community a series of norms, both the common use of symbols, a common recognition of the theory, concepts, methods, rules, and specific examples of problem solving, but also shared beliefs and other psychological factors. In practice, formed in the process of paradigm is solid, easy conversion, and the old paradigm and new paradigm incommensurability between. Therefore, if the use of the old paradigm of the evaluation of new ideas and perspectives and new theory. Will influence and interference assessment, not an objective evaluation of new ideas, new ideas, new theories of value, and even stifle new ideas and new concepts. The history of science is littered with such examples.

4, Matthew. American scholar Robert Morton of the "Matthew Effect" to make an explanation: "The scientists have made a considerable contribution to the reputation of honor more and more. As for those who have not known scientists then refused to recognize their achievements. "Matthew easily lead to the French Academy of Sciences" Forty for a seat "phenomenon, the name of the people in the peer review of competition in the occupied edge. According to the rules of peer review, evaluation of the results should depend the quality of the object in the council, has nothing to do with being reviewed. However, the Matthew effect, leading scientists reviewed the project or the results susceptible to peer recognition, the level is generally higher and higher, but not well-known scientists of the project and the quality of the results easily be underestimated, even ignored. Meanwhile, well-known academic institutions or from the famous point and the project also benefited from Matthew.

5, human relations. China is a human power, human networks are intertwined, and large and strong. Consultative experts and very "human touch" in the appraisal process to take care of students and teachers, classmates, relatives, friends and other relations, "the human, Latin American relations , parochial, "and so is more serious. and the relationship between human disturbance and objective appraisal of experts to judge, making the principle of fair and equitable peer review degenerated into human speak, on the relationship of the farce, which distorts the nature of academic evaluation.

6, the conflict of interest. Peer review is an important prerequisite for effective appraisal experts all have to be impartial. Experts are not "saints", driven by the interests vulnerable. Experts not only represents the personal interests, but also represent the collective interests of the unit interest. The interests of the experts not only include: economic interests, but also the interests of society, subject interests, various interests are intertwined and complicated. Some experts failed to adhere to the principles of appraisal they simply own interests appraisal standards. For the same interest, experts are not consciously reduced appraisal standards, raise the eligible, the quality of projects and results, for the conflict of interest, experts will deliberately overstating appraisal standards, lowering the eligible, the level of projects and results. As the impact of interest, making the peer review become a clique, the partition of the interests of black transactions.

Second, the appraisal mechanism
Review mechanisms as peer review procedures and systems, constraints, and regulate the behavior of expert appraisal is reviewed impartiality and objectivity of effective protection. However, the implementation of our peer-reviewed short time, mechanism building, there is the following disadvantages.

(A) lack of expert selection mechanism. In a variety of academic assessment activities, there is no uniform system for the selection of experts and scientific selection criteria, accrediting bodies at all levels, from the selection rules and standards experts. Accrediting bodies generally based on academic qualifications, job title, disciplines, qualifications, selection of external factors known experts, there is considerable arbitrariness. As an expert selection system neglected subject structure, making evaluation of peer review experts appear in the strange phenomenon of outsider influence the objectivity of assessment, due to neglect the moral qualities of the expert study, making the evaluation process often appears black case, black deal of scientific misconduct affected the impartiality and objectivity of the assessment: expert evaluation of the ability to ignore the study, making the innovative, forward-looking results to be killed, affecting the evaluation of the scientific.

(B) lack of monitoring mechanisms. The current appraisal system, the council of experts in the consultative process with independent appraisal rights. Supervisory powers, once lost, it will spread uncontrolled, seriously affecting the fairness of the appraisal. Consultative zero responsibility experts making powers and responsibilities of experts out of balance. In the review process can be "generous" to play their own power. Generally popular anonymous review system can effectively prevent human relations on the one hand, interest on the council's interference, but on the other hand will be well placed in black box experts to protect them. with impunity, "do whatever they want." According to Wuhan University, LITERATURE, Zhao, Peng Fuchun three doctoral disclosed in the Social Sciences in Hubei Province (1994-1998) in the awards process, "awards host and individual assessment Committee use their authority in philosophy to a serious sociological group awards event turned into a hoodwink, clique, the partition of the interests of the farce "is an example of failure of council oversight.

To improve the quality and impact of council, the need to strengthen mechanisms, identify the focal point, a mechanism to amend, supplement and improve the peer review mechanism to standardize and restrain the behavior of an expert appraisal. Increase the credibility of peer review to make it more effective. Reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com 1. Perfect the expert selection criteria. Consultative experts on the implementation of peer review is critical, the selection of appropriate experts from the following aspects:
(1) knowledge structures. Peer review is based on the selection of the main comments. Peers large and small peer peer points, selection and appraisal of the peer to adapt the object to ensure the quality of critical appraisal. To determine whether a small expert peer must be from the "field", "study" and "research problem" three judgments. Selection of areas of study, research questions and comment the same or similar small object peer appraisal is to protect the quality of preconditions.

(2) academic level. Academic level of high level experts from the council is not necessarily high, but experts in the academic level is not high, the level of a certain limited its comments. Expert academic standards reflected in the award-winning level, the level of commitment to scientific research, academic writings and papers, as well as the development of the discipline issues and developments in the forefront of mastery, academic reputation and academic status, academic experts, which best reflects the level of academic masterpiece.

(3) research ethics. Should not only focus on the academic level of experts, but also attach importance to moral training of experts. Noble character and moral quality of academic experts with high moral self-discipline, moral constraints to their behavior in order to stamp out human relationship and interest, to maintain objectivity in the review process in the academic attitude, make a fair evaluation.

(Four) council level. Expert appraisal reflects the level of quality in their appraisal, appraisal quality can be discrete, hit rates and to measure the level of success. Divergence primarily reflects the expert group and expert understanding of individual differences , the hit rate reflects the accuracy of expert judgments: the success rate of the forward-looking reflect expert judgments. by these three indicators to measure quantitatively the level of expert appraisal, select qualified experts into the expert database, the experts do not meet the conditions removed.

2. Mechanism for the implementation of an anonymous group discussion. In its review of the way, is still popular is anonymity, also known as "blind trial", and require two-way anonymous. Anonymous system can effectively curb the human relations and the interests of the interference of peer review, to improve the appraisal play a role in justice. However, the knowledge of experts in the elimination of background, research paradigm, way of thinking on the impact of little effect. If the review process in information technology to join in collective anonymity to discuss the implementation of the system, peer review The quality will be increased, the specific implementation of the method: the object to be evaluated to establish a chat room, council of experts to expand the theme of the object to be evaluated in real time or non real-time discussion, seek common ground, so that gradually council agreed conclusions, by way of uploading show their arguments. fully demonstrate the significance of the object to be evaluated, value and innovation, consultative process of experts are anonymous and can not disclose information about their own identity, if found irregularities. administrators the right to revoke its accreditation, for there is a big divisive issue, the experts can keep their views, through online voting are resolved, and so on. through this anonymous discussions, use of peer information exchange and communication between experts. Reduce the tendency to treat the subjective assessment of experts the negative impact of the object, thereby improving the effectiveness of appraisal.

3. The implementation of rotation of experts. Experts in the academic council of the right to have a lot. Experts are not "saints", they will be subject to human relations, interests, tendencies, and subjective effects. If an expert has reviewed the long-term rights, passage of time will form their own academic circles, the breeding of academic corruption, alienation of academic nature. so. Necessary to implement peer rotation, peer term of office of two years, re-elected no more than two consecutive terms. Term ends, in accordance with relevant rules and procedures for selection, re-evaluation appraisal experts. Rotation to break the interests, shielding human relations to improve the effectiveness of peer review.

4. Focus on evaluation of the evidence presented mechanism. Consultative council concluded that the evidence based on comments after a careful reasoning of the council to judge the value of the object. Under Review and comment on the evidence reasoning to outline the appraisal of experts thought that explicit thought processes of experts. Peer review should be stressed the council presented evidence, insist on evaluating the evidence based on evaluation findings, while the evaluation findings should be fully explained in the evaluation of reasons, to show logical reasoning evaluation. This mechanism is conducive to the exchanges between the peer reviewed, reviewed the process of promoting transparency, Review conclusion makes clear. clear and careful logical reasoning, the evaluation concluded that sufficient evidence of the council of scientific and rational, and lack of evaluation of evidence and deliberations of the council logical confusion subjective conclusions of the experts only.

5. Improve the supervision mechanism. Now is the more common methods of surveillance publicity appraisal results. It is not enough. In order to strengthen oversight efforts, we have to further increase the transparency of deliberations, and "Sunshine review", so that "sun" light Review process each step, detail and content. implementing peer review process, we have to open expert selection criteria and procedures, standards and procedures for public comment, public review process and comment content, expert evaluation of evidence and evaluation of public reasoning logic, results and publicity PARTICIPATING Review the results, open up channels of supervision, the admissibility of each complaint, and so good, making the whole process of peer review open. Every detail and content are among the effective supervision and effective control of academic misconduct and improve the council's authority. Links http://www.hi138.com Research Papers Download