Abstract: R&D funding and investment in basic research of Shenzhen is under rapid growth in recent years. This study firstly reviews the evaluation system of scientific-technological projects of American National Institutes of Health (NIH), American National Science Foundation (NSF), and National Science Foundation of China (NSFC). Based on this, we compare the review and evaluation system of scientific-technological projects of Shenzhen with NIH, NSF, and NSFC. The comparison results provide useful references to project reforms in Shenzhen. As the comprehensive and deepening reform is promoted in China, the development of technology plays an important role in economic and other areas in the society, and it has also become an urgent requirement in the reform processes of scientific-technological in China. The projects of NIH and NSF can be applied in several periods yearly, while most of scientific-technological projects in China can only be applied in a specific period yearly. The administrative permissions of project administrators in China are also different from those in the United States. Generally, two rounds expert evaluation are carried out in the evaluation of NIH scientific research projects. The evaluation index of scientific research projects of NIH mainly includes the significance, innovation, route, and research condition. Experts have to evaluate and grade on the projects item by item based on evaluation indicators, and point out deficiencies and making recommendations. The NSF regards academic value and wide impact as the two basic principles for project evaluation. Peer review is the major method for project evaluation both at home and abroad. The scientific-technological projects evaluation in Shenzhen also applied peer review method. However, there are also some deficiencies in peer review. For example, when consulting peer review experts in the period of project review, some innovative and challenge projects are difficult to be recognized by experts because the innovation of the projects have not yet been effectively validated. Additionally, some experts in some fields are not qualified to participate in evaluation processes, resulting in a reduction of the number of peer experts. In particular, lack of experts in some uncommon fields may receive the evaluation from an expert in other fields. The current evaluation mechanism is mainly limited by the willing and the free time of the experts. With the increase in the number of applications and the decrease of grant proportion, the potential qualified experts are becoming rare. With the rapidly growth of R&D funding and the investment of basic research of Shenzhen, how to combine scientific researches with education and how to put excellent management concepts into practice are urgent problems to be addressed. This article studies the differences of the funding policy, information management, and the construction, comprehensiveness, continuity of the scientific-technological projects management system between China and the United States. Based on the difference studies and the specific situation of Shenzhen, we give suggestions to improve the evaluation system of scientific-technological projects of Shenzhen. The key indicators for scientific-technological evaluation are proposed. The comprehensiveness and continuity of the scientific-technological evaluation system are also strengthened. This study will be function as a guidance for scientific-technological evaluation.

Key words: NIH, NSF, evaluation system of science and technology