本文通过一个准试验研究,验证了以第三层次学科目录作为划分同行标准的相对有效性;并比较分析了以此标准划分的同行和非同行对自然科学类和人文社科类科研申请评价效果的差异;研究还验证了源于"棋局试验"的系统优劣评判思想并不适宜于科研申请评价,进一步证明了专业性同行在科研申请评价中的关键角色。

Through a quasi-standard experiment,it is confirmed that the third level discipline catalogue should become the reference standard to distinguish peers from non-peers. Furthermore, the research application evaluation difference made by peers and non-peers who are defined with this reference standard between natural science and humanity, social science is analyzed comparatively. The test results about the hypothesis originated from "chess game experiment" indicate that the idea about evaluating system design quality dose not suitable for the research application evaluation, and further prove that the peers play the key role in the guarantee of evaluation effectiveness.