[留念] 结题评价是引导科研健康发展的重要具体方法

   这是刘立老师提出的重要的具体问题，是一个十分好的问题。

   预祝刘老师在该方面做成更多的成果！

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1370960.html

参考资料：

[1] Michael Park, Erin Leahey, Russell J. Funk. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time [J]. Nature, 2013, 613: 138–144.

doi:  10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x

[2] Max Kozlov. ‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why. Nature, 2023-01-04

doi:  10.1038/d41586-022-04577-5

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-04577-5

[3] Daniel Lawler, Juliette Collen. Rate of scientific breakthroughs slowing over time: Study. phys.org, 2023-01-04

https://phys.org/news/2023-01-scientific-breakthroughs.html

[4] 生物世界，2023-01-05，Nature：论文与专利越来越多，但突破性成果却越来越少

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ylFv3jrSkzsklZMTHJZfDA

[5] 孙学军，2023-01-05，过去半世纪，论文数量剧增，颠覆性论文和技术却减少了 精选

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-1370584.html

[6] 诸平，2023-01-08，Nature：科学突破的速度随着时间的推移而放缓 精选

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-212210-1371098.html

[7] 顾伯洪，2023-01-06，科研产出的量与质 精选

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39184-1370734.html

[8] Johan S. G. Chu, James A. Evans. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science [J]. PNAS, 2021, 118(41): e2021636118. October 12, 2021.

doi:  10.1073/pnas.2021636118

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2021636118

[9] 集智俱乐部，2021-11-23，PNAS：数以亿计的论文，正在成为科学创新的阻力

https://m.thepaper.cn/baijiahao_15500903

[10] 知乎，2021-10-12，PNAS | “同质化”论文暴增，从根本上阻碍了科学的进步！

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/420524249

[11] Lingfei Wu, Dashun Wang, James A. Evans. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology[J]. Nature, 2019, 566(7744): 378-382.

doi:  10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0941-9

[12] 2019-02-17，Nature | 科研大团队负责添砖加瓦，小团队负责开疆拓土颠覆创新 

https://www.sohu.com/a/295326182_732029

[13] 生物谷，2019-02-23，Nature期刊发文指出在科学技术领域，规模更大的研究团队并不总是表现更好

https://www.bioon.com/article/6734245.html

[14] Richard N. Zare. 关于采用同行评议责任制的倡议[N]. 中国科学报，2019-04-29 第1版.

https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/upload/2019/4/20194295461660.pdf

https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dzzz_1.aspx?dzsbqkid=32340

http://news.sciencenet.cn/sbhtmlnews/2019/4/345573.shtm

[15] Richard N. Zare. The case for peer-informed review [J]. Chemical & Engineering News, 2019, 97(12):2-2.    March 23, 2019

https://cen.acs.org/policy/research-funding/case-peer-informed-review/97/i12

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/cen-09712-editorial

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cen-09712-editorial

[16] 张章，荷兰试点经费分配新体系[N]. 中国科学报，2017-04-18 第3版.

https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/upload/201741855431724.pdf

https://news.sciencenet.cn/dz/dzzz_1.aspx?dzsbqkid=27632

http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2017/4/373758.shtm

[17] 李江，2017-12-19，如果科研经费改为平均分配...... 精选

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-1792012-1090437.html

[18] Jop de Vrieze. With this new system, scientists never have to write a grant application again. Science, 2017-04-13

doi:  10.1126/science.aal1055

https://www.science.org/content/article/new-system-scientists-never-have-write-grant-application-again

[19] 杨正瓴. 对科技成果代表作评价的具体建议[J]. 科技中国，2019，(2): 41.

http://www.casted.org.cn/channel/newsinfo/7120

[20] 2022-01-14，废话的胜利：“精致而平庸”的论文是怎么发上顶级刊物的？

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1721917651029877855&wfr=spider&for=pc

https://ishare.ifeng.com/c/s/v002Jp5DFzdH3lFRG5toTmcDqGnY9jd9wHZ--aSCNq19ynrA__

https://xw.qq.com/amphtml/20220114A0BWKK00

https://view.inews.qq.com/a/20220114A07CS700

[21] Dennis Tourish. The triumph of nonsense in management studies [J]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2020, 19(1): 99-109.

doi:  10.5465/amle.2019.0255

https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amle.2019.0255

[22] Dongbo Shi, Weichen Liu, Yanbo Wang. Has China’s Young Thousand Talents program been successful in recruiting and nurturing top-caliber scientists?[J]. Science, 2023, 379(6627): 62-65.

DOI:  10.1126/science.abq1218

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq1218

[23] 中国科学报官方账号，2022-09-19，Science发文：论文署名改为诺奖得主，接收率飙升50%

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1744348535463678717

[24] Jeffrey Brainard. Reviewers award higher marks when a paper’s author is famous [J]. Science, 2022, 377(6612): 1251.

SCIENCEINSIDERSCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, Reviewers award higher marks when a paper’s author is famous, “Matthew effect” is powerful, unusually large study finds, 13 SEP 20225:20 PMBYJEFFREY BRAINARD

doi:  10.1126/science.ade8721

https://www.science.org/content/article/reviewers-award-higher-marks-when-paper-s-author-famous

   The stark disparity might not surprise many researchers. But it is troubling, an author of the new study told the peer-review congress. “Identical work should not be evaluated differently depending on who wrote it,” said Christian König-Kersting, a behavioral economist at Innsbruck. “Because that makes it especially hard for younger and unknown researchers to get their foot in the door in the academic process.”

   这种明显的差异可能不会让许多研究人员感到惊讶。但这项新研究的一位作者在同行评审大会上表示，这令人不安。因斯布鲁克的行为经济学家克里斯蒂安·科尼格-克斯廷 (Christian König-Kersting) 说：“不应根据作者的不同对相同的作品进行不同的评价。” “因为这使得年轻和不知名的研究人员特别难以涉足学术过程。”

   Researchers who study bias in publishing have suggested double-blind reviews—in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are masked—might reduce the Matthew effect. But that tactic might not work, König-Kersting told the congress, given that reviewers can often identify authors from a preprint or conference presentation.

   研究出版偏见的研究人员建议双盲评论——作者和评论者的身份都被掩盖——可能会降低马太效应。但这种策略可能行不通，König-Kersting 告诉大会，因为审稿人通常可以从预印本或会议演示文稿中识别作者。

[25] 陈彬. “钱学森之问”的“三重问”[N]. 中国科学报, 2014-12-25 第6版 动态.

https://paper.sciencenet.cn/dz/dzzz_1.aspx?dzsbqkid=22079

https://paper.sciencenet.cn/dz/upload/2014122581932464.pdf

https://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2014/12/310024.shtm

   “换言之，‘钱学森之问’不但在中国存在，世界范围内也有同样问题，其原因很可能在于我们处于信息化时代，海量信息使人们根本没时间思考‘大问题’。没有思考，也就难成大家。”徐辉说。

   无法出现大师的主要原因在于时代而非教育本身。徐辉的观点一经提出，便引来了质疑。

相关链接：

[1] 2022-08-18，[汇集] “同行评议”阻碍创新的近年权威期刊的参考文献

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1351670.html

[2] 2021-09-01，[负能量] “同行评议”妨碍创新的实证研究结果汇集（2019+）

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1302382.html

[3] 2019-09-25，近年关于“同行评议”的大数据实证研究论文（汇集）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1199462.html

感谢您的指教！

感谢您指正以上任何错误！

感谢您提供更多的相关资料！