本文基于不可验证性视角对学术水平是否适合作为科研奖励的评奖标准进行了研究。本文提出了一个科学家获奖概率模型,该模型弥补了科研锦标赛框架中未考虑同行评议的缺陷,并使得科研奖励模型更加符合学术水平不可验证的经济学特征。本文运用上述模型实证分析了我国科研奖励中同行评议的有效性。本文的主要研究结论是:(1)学术水平难以直接作为遴选科研奖励获奖成果的标准;(2)科学家能否获奖取决于同行科学家的推定而与其科研成果的学术水平没有显著的直接关系;(3)目前我国省级以上科研奖励的同行评议难以有效分离学术水平不同的科研成果;(4)学术创新还难以成为我国省级以上科研奖励的主要激励目标。提高同行评议的有效性是本文研究结论最主要的政策含义。
Abstract
From the perspective of unverifiability, this paper begins by discussing the feasibility of academic quality being the criteria of science awards. A model explaining the probability of winning the prize is presented, in which the effect of peer reviewing not included in the framework of research tournament is considered. This makes the science reward model become more consistent with the unverified characteristics of academic quality. The effectiveness of peer reviewing for science awards in China was analyzed by taking advantage of the model. The most important conclusions include: (1) academic quality does not fit the criteria for science awards due to its unverifiability; (2) the probability for scientists winning the prize depends on the reviewing of peer scientists instead of the academic quality of their research achievements per se. (3) the peer reviewing for science awards at or above provincial level in China cannot separate research achievements with different academic quality; and (4) academic innovation is hardly the incentive target of science awards at or above provincial level in China. Most importantly, improving the effectiveness of peer reviewing for science awards is the leading policy implication.
关键词
学术水平 /
不可验证性 /
科研奖励 /
同行评议
Key words
academic quality /
unverifiability /
science awards /
peer reviewing
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 王平,宋子良,刘爱玲.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现[J].科技管理研究,1997(4):38-40.
[2] 江新华.论我国学术奖励制度的缺陷与创新[J].科研管理,2006,27(6):85-91.
[3] 尚宇红,严卫宏.我国科技奖励体系的结构分析[J].科学技术与辩证法,2003,20(4):47-50.
[4] 邱均平、谭春辉、文庭孝.我国科技奖励工作和研究的现状与趋势[J].科技管理研究,2006(9):4-7.
[5] Clark,Derek J.,Christian Riis.Rank-order tournaments and selection[J].Journal of Economics,2001,73(2):167-191.
[6] Taylor,Curtis R..Digging for golden carrots:An analysis of research tournaments[J].American Economic Review,1995,85(4):872-890.
[7] Fullerton,Richard L.,R.Preston McAfee.Auctioning entry into tournament[J].Journal of Political Economy,1999,107(3):573-605.
[8] Fullerton,Richard L.,Bruce G.Linster,Michael McKee,Stephen Slate.Using auctioning to reward tournament winner[J].Rand Journal of Economics,2002,33(1):62-84.
[9] Che,Yeon-Koo,Ian Gale.Optimal design of research contests[J].American Economic Review,2003,93(3):62-84.
[10] 陈志俊,张昕竹.科研资助的激励机制研究-分析框架与文献综述[J].经济学(季刊),2004,4(1):1-26.
[11] 让-雅克·拉丰,大卫·马赫蒂摩.激励理论(第一卷):委托-代理模型[M].经济科学出版社,2002:188-189.
[12] Cicchetti,D.V..The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions:A cross-disciplinary investigation[J],Behavioral & Brain Sciences,1991,14:119-186.
[13] Rothwell,P.M.,C.N.Martyn.Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience.Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone?[J],Brain,2000,123:1964-1969.
[14] Gottfredson,S.D..Evaluating psychological research reports:Dimensions,reliability,and correlates of quality judgments[J].American Psychologist,1978,33(10):920-934.
[15] Gottfredson,D.M.,S.D.Gottfredson.Criminal justice and(reviewer)behavior:How to get papers published[J].Criminal Justice & Behavior,1982,9(3):259-272.
[16] Wolff,W.M..A study of criteria for journal manuscripts[J].American Psychologist,1970,25:636-639.
[17] Starbuck,W.H..Turning lemons into lemonade:What is the value in peer reviews?[J],Journal of Management Inquiry,2003,12(4):344-351.
[18] Wooldridge,Jeffrey M..Introductory Econometrics:A Modern Approach[M].清华大学出版社,2004:574.
基金
国家自然科学基金(70473075)"我国公共农业科研机构激励理论与管理制度创新",2004.1-2008.12。
PDF(1 KB)
