“同行评议”,没什么用? 美国著名的 Science 周刊,7 February 2014, vol. 343 no. 6171: 596-598 刊登 了 Jeffrey Mervis 的 NEWS FOCUS 《 Peering Into Peer Review 》,及其 《 Making Every Scientist a Research Funder 》(Science, 7 February 2014: 598)。 两幅图片如下( 想必 Science 会以促进人类科学进步的名义,不追究所谓的可耻的自私的版权限制 ): 同行评议的“评分”没有优点 Equal impacts. The publication record from proposals with the best scores was no better than for those scoring in the middle and lowest tiers among heart research funded by NIH. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6171/596/F2.expansion.html 胜负不分:看不出同行评议“高分”有预见性 Slow off the mark. The time to publication for NHLBI clinical trials isn’t linked to what review panels thought about the research. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6171/596/F3.expansion.html 这是 否“实证”了同行 评议没什么用? 同行评议的实质:用落后来限制先进! 先进的真理只能掌握在少数人手里。 体 现“民主”的同 行评议,将越来越成为阻碍未来科学发展的内在原因。 共识性好,也可能是没水平没价值的直接表现! 决策和监督中的民主是个第二位问题。 100个雷锋,任你再独裁,还是雷锋精神; 100个强盗,凭你再民主,还是强盗逻辑! 第一位的是个人观点的正确性。 Hosono对科研资助的观点: Interviewer: A typical example is genome research. The US and the UK have put an enormous amount of money into bio-related research, but there have been no great scientific findings. I suppose that a contributing factor to this lack of success is the review process. The review process for research proposals is too strict. Hosono: Nevertheless, we have no choice but to use the review process when selecting 90% of research projects. I think that about 10% of research projects should be selected by simply entrusting them to researchers with talent and achievement. ERATO project adopts the official project after the leader’s surname and entrusted the projects to a project leader. The results of research basically differ depending on who is doing the research; research is all about people. Although Tora-san (the protagonist of a popular Japanese cinema series) might declare, “That's too fatalistic.” The possibility that challenging basic research will be successfully completed is not so high, even if it has been nominally successful. Thinking about this, I calculated the amount of money that I have so far received for research as the representative. To my surprise, the total amount of money has reached the amount needed to build a large bridge. Making Every Scientist a Research Funder。 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6171/598.full 真理(客观规律)是客观的,不是主观的! 相关链接: 2012-10-14,同行评议:合理吗? http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-622516.html 2014-07-26, 同行评议的实质:用落后来限制先进! http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-814898.html 苗妮,中国科学报,2013-09-25, 隐秘与主观盛行 谁来 评议“同行评议” http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/9/283081.shtm 任胜利,2008-11-27,同行评议:想说爱你不容易 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-38899-48526.html 孙学军,2013-12-12,同行评议存在缺陷 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-41174-749112.html 杨文祥,2014-08-09,对影响因子和同行评议的反思——也谈学术评价与检验真理的标准 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-496942-818381.html 中国社会科学报,2014-07-17,同行评议的权威在于公信 http://www.cssn.cn/sf/201407/t20140717_1257482.shtml 刘进平,2014-01-23,日 本“铁基超导之父” Hosono对中国铁基超导研究的评价 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-39731-761589.html 人民日报,2014-02-28, 警惕民主陷阱下的治理失灵 http://news.xinhuanet.com/comments/2014-02/28/c_119539496.htm 2012-07-27,《 中共精英领导层制度值得学习 》:好文推荐! http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-596496.html 新华网,2014-05-12, 国外知名学术期刊利用网络改变审稿机制 http://news.xinhuanet.com/zgjx/2014-05/12/c_133327712.htm 编辑部将来稿在网上公开,同时将审稿人的姓名告诉作者, 作者和读者都能在网上看到审稿人的评审意见,并与审稿人对话和交流。 公开审稿的实质是编辑部借助网络信息技术为作者、审稿人及广大学者搭建了平等对话的平台,使大家在科学面前完全平等。 早发表,晚评价。努力在我,评价在人。 http://www.cas.cn/zt/rwzt/jnhlgdcybzn/hlgjdyl/201011/t20101111_3009252.html http://www.cas.cn/spzb1/JNHLGSS25ZN/HLG25YL/201006/t20100611_2879861.html 1978年他在中 国数学会成都会议上语重心长地提出: “早发表,晚评价。” 后来又进一步提出: “努力在我,评价在人。” 这是科学的规律,即科学工作要经过历史检验才能逐步确定其真实价值,也是他人生的体验,具有现实意义。 新华网,2014-10-21,丁肇中对话青年师生:一生最重要选择是只做一件事 http://news.xinhuanet.com/edu/2014-10/21/c_127121143.htm 曾经,在丁肇中实验的某一领域,专家们给 出了200余 种理论。有人问他哪个是对的,该怎么办?他回答:“不怎么办,继续做实验。”他说,“经验,至少对我来说是没有意义的。专家,更没有意义。” 丁肇中说,科学是多数服从少数,只有少数人把多数人的观念推翻以后,科学才能向前发展。因此, 专 家评审并不是绝对有用的。因为专家评审依靠现有的知识,而科学的进展是推翻现有的知识。 新华日报,2012-06-27,科学研究,只有第一没有第二 http://www.qstheory.cn/wz/jiangt/201206/t20120627_166500.htm 不要盲从专家的结论,权威专家的实验结果未必都是正确的。 【感悟】我的第一个体会是:不要盲从专家的结论,在我以前做实验的都是世界很有名的科学家,他们的实验结果未必都是正确的。