“招兵买马”后续 | | 顺致初涉学术写作的童鞋们 翟自洋 （一） 2 月 22 日，编辑部发出英雄帖，一时间应者云集：有浙大各校区的，有全国各地（四川、天津、长沙、上海、海南……）的，还有身在海外的；有本科、硕士、直博、博后；有科研新手，也有发表过 10 多篇英文论文的“熟手”……一位博二的同学，文章不久前不幸被拒，因为评审人指出写作上的不足，特来应聘；一位同学，表示是我们微信的忠实读者，“非常希望能成为其中的一员，参与神圣的编辑工作”。 同学们追求上进的热情，感染和激励着小编们。小编们不敢懈怠，首先保证对每封邮件都有回应。目前绝大多数同学已经收到“排版手册”和试排稿——无论排版还是校对编辑，都需要从这里起步—— B 版的小编已经率先在 QQ 群里与大家互动， A 、 C 版小编接下来也将根据大家的完成情况陆续反馈意见。需要说明的是，因为人数较多，我们无法一一留下，只好选择现阶段更积极更出色的同学。尤其外校同学，考虑到沟通效率，需要有更强烈的意愿和更好的综合素养。入围名单确定之后，主要是针对所排文章一对一的指导；对于浙大校内同学，考虑选择时机集体现场指导。暂时未入围的同学也请不要气馁，接下来或许有补选机会；在我们的工作 QQ 群，或可以享受到持续资源福利。 顺道说说应聘邮件的事儿。招聘帖要求在邮件标题注明“应聘英文版兼职”， OK ，这个大家都做到了。值得称道的是，少数有心的同学，还在标题里加上了学校、院系、姓名等——因为编辑部一共有 3 份刊，需要根据各位的专业二次分配。有的同学，除了附上简历，还在邮件正文简要说明情况，写上电话。帮小编节省时间的同学是好同学，要赞。 （二） 上面说到一位博士投稿 FITEE 不幸被拒，评审人指出写作上的不足。意见中有这么一段： Before moving to the next step, it should be mentioned that most of the following comments are related to the basic research and writing skills. The adviser and/or corresponding author should teach the students how to write a scientific paper. Unfortunately, they (teachers) almost did not haveTIME to read the manuscript/advise them (students), and leave the reviewers to teach their students. ——因为中国的导师太忙，没有时间指导；抑或导师求学阶段未得到有效指导，所以不具备指导的能力。往者不可谏，来者犹可追。未来的导师将从现在的博士生中产生，与其怨天尤人，不如通过自身努力，避免日后成为上面这段意见所指的导师。 借此机会，说说小编对于论文写作的一点感想。论文的根本目的在于传达思想，促进交流。大数据时代，碎片化阅读成为常态。吸引同行眼球，减轻读者负担，提高交流效率，是论文写作的要旨。科技文写作，是技术，而非艺术。艺术讲求百家争鸣，把简单变复杂是一种艺术；科技文写作，宗旨则只有一个：把复杂变简单。科技文章，仅靠文本不足以展示原理，讲好故事，于是加入了公式、图、表等元素。有一个 3C 准则，对于这些元素都适用：准确（ Correct ）、简洁（ Concise ）、清楚（ Clear ）。读一篇文章，如果逻辑清晰，语法正确，用词精炼，图表简洁，则阅读畅通无阻；反之，若拼写和语法错误频频，前后不一，重复累赘，或是自相矛盾，则阅读过程不断“出戏”，读者必将疲累不堪。编辑工作的目的，就是将作者的思想准确高效地传达给读者，让读者阅读时不“出戏”。 旧文链接： 英文 SCI/SSCI 论文写作、投稿技巧 简言之，科技英文写作需要关注三个方面：科学内容、科技英语、学科规范。单表基本的“科技英语”一项，需要关注的有逻辑、语法、拼写、搭配、时态、语态、一致性等等。以下是摘自一位作者 response to reviewers 的一句话： Thanks for your comment, I have corrected the paper in according to your advise. and Also revised the whole paper carefully. 请大家判断一下，这里有几处错误？ ——答案是不少于 5 处。 Thanks for your comment(s) . I have corrected the paper according to your advice, and also revised the whole paper carefully. 假如一篇 5 页的文章（计 1 万字），混入这么一句话，即使其他所有内容完美无缺，其差错率也将超过国家标准——合格的编辑，不在于发现多少错误，而在于不要放过错误。 面对外语，小编们也没有十拿九稳的底气。为此，编辑部聘请了一支 Native English Consultant 队伍，其中一位是一线学者，曾多次来中国与同行学者交流，也学了多年中文，对中国有很深的感情。几年前这位外专造访编辑部，令小编记忆犹新的是，随身还带着最新版的英语语法。让老外评审人费劲的“中国式英语”经他手以后，就成了十分熨帖、地道的英文。耳濡目染，日积月累，小编们的功力也见涨。参与兼职的同学们将有机会接触到这些地道的润色，如果碰巧遇到对口学科的文章，能够钻潜下去，细细体味，相信会收获满满。 论文写作是一项复杂工程，对于初涉写作的科研新手而言，在求取新知的过程中，难免有困惑，有矛盾，需要不断怀疑、求证，拾起一个个知识碎片，逐渐拼搭成一个整体。如果大家感兴趣，接下来，小编们有意梳理工作中点滴心得体会、遇到的典型案例，帮助大家缩短建立体系的过程。 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ --- --- --- --- -- 首发于 微信公众号“ 浙大学报英文版”（zdxbywb）
现在这年头新鲜事，越来越多了，在美国的时候 很少有什么grant让我来review。现在，回到国内陆续接到过几个email 让我来给几个grant写review。 太荒谬了，一个美国或者英国的基金会，跑到这么远，找个中国的大学， 特别是我这个连个地方基金都混不上的小屁屁，去评审一个大经费。 白人就是太傻了，这样的骗局，中国的小孩子都不信。 今天，我又收到了一个类似的东西，这次我决心要打入敌人内部查查他们， 把经验积累了，可以提醒国内的傻教授们别上当。 Dear Dr Gao, I am writing from Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity, the the UK’s largest charitable funder of medical research dedicated to paediatrics, to ask if you would consider reviewing a research grant application. Your expert opinion would be highly valued and will greatly assist our panel in their deliberations. We would be delighted if you were able to accommodate this request. In particular we would very much appreciate your comments on the RNA sequencing aspect of the application. The review is for Mrs xx and the title of the application is xx. The application was submitted in response to our National Grant call in Translational Paediatric Research. For a summary of the application, please follow the link below. We kindly ask that you submit your comments by 04 August 2016 I would be grateful if you can visit the link below and confirm whether you are willing to review this application. If you are able to complete a review we will send you the application and peer review form. If additional time is required, do please let us know. If you are unable to assist us on this occasion but know of any suitably qualified individual then please do let me know. If you are unsure whether it would be appropriate for you to comment on this proposal, due to a possible conflict of interest, please do contact me first before agreeing to complete the review. We would be very grateful if would be able to include this review within your portfolio of activities and your time is very much appreciated. I look forward to your reply. Click the following link xx If the link doesn't work, select and copy the code below XM 9TCJ NW6J 68LY 236D F0G4 3LH5 and paste in the textbox on the following URL https://grants.gosh.org /IV/ Kind regards, xx Great Ormond Street Hospital Children's Charity Grants Team
SCI论文投稿，无赖和无奈 自从有了期刊论文，和以论文数作为科研的评价指标之后，投稿人和所谓的审稿专家，接收和拒稿，就成了永恒的矛盾对。并且，惯于出奇葩的国人“科学家”用钱买发表机会成了远非个案的潜规则，也是不争的事实。 绝大部分期刊论文，包括国人所崇拜的高档SCI期刊，都是这样的形式：在与现行理论原理方法一致的基础上，加进自己的一点点小“创意”，然后用所谓的实验数据和漂亮图表，论证自己的那点小改变，具有多么重要的意义。其实明眼人不难发现，绝绝大部分是聊胜于无。 正是这样的论文最容易被期刊掌管者和所谓的审稿专家接受，因为没有风险。与此相反，与现行理论观点相异，或一个全新的理论、或全新的方法（不揣冒昧，敝算法就属全新的方法，但与现行理论没有矛盾，只是方法思路全新原创），要想被期刊接受却难于上青天，因为那帮期刊的管理者和所谓的专家，由于既不愿意投入过多的时间精力去理解，或者其本身的实力确实有限，但又不愿承认，同时又害怕因接受错了贻笑于人而承担风险，最聪明的办法就是找几条歪理拒稿。 由此，各位不难判断，当今世界每年多如牛毛的所谓“科研论文”，绝大部分（百分之九十以上）是毫无价值的垃圾。 从而就有了：投稿者的无奈：一些真有价值的论文却被一次又一次的拒稿；审稿专家的无赖：看不懂，或怕承担风险，就找歪理拒稿。与之相对应，也有无赖的投稿者，明明心中有数自己的乃是拼凑乃至剽窃造假的垃圾论文，却要大量投、重复多投；而对此期刊和审稿者也有无奈。 本人最近就经历过这样的无奈和无赖。 论文被一著名期刊拒稿，一看“comments”，明显评者根本没有看懂没有理解。一怒之下，在仅做了一点文字表达方面的小修改和加了一小段针对评审意见疑问的解释之后，在被拒稿仅几天之后，立即又重新投稿同一期刊。有点无赖吧，各位都是高人，有人这样干过吗？或这样干能行吗？ 有趣的是，该期刊竟然没有立即拒绝，而是重新分配编辑重新处理。 显然，该著名期刊也是一个矛盾心理：本能上觉得这么超难的问题这个无名之辈不可能搞出来，估计是错的，同时又隐隐感觉到存在着该人实力确实强大，存在着对的可能性；故一方面他们不敢接受害怕承担风险，另一方面又害怕失去一次大的机会，更害怕因为若真的拒了一个真的大成果而承受骂名。这就是他们在行为上犹豫不决的心理原因。 下面是最新版，算法和证明完全没变，也就是加了一点点如何理解的文字解释。 下面是链接： http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.3702.pdf 如下老师对修改有过友好帮助，且有被采纳，表示感谢：汪小龙、王小平、张忆文，我院一位年轻教师，有多篇不错的SCI论文和多次以主持人获得国家自然科学基金资助的少壮精锐，对文章语法和错别字方面有过全面修改，也有几位洋人帮忙做出了较大的语言修改，且采纳较大，衷心感谢！ 下面附上与几位貌似做过期刊编辑和审稿人的洋人的对话： 两位洋教授对我NP研究的评语和忠告 两位洋教授，都是英美名校计算机科学或数学类专业的博士，对我的NP研究给出了评语和忠告，也就是与我短信交流了一阵。本人觉得对我有启发，他们的思维方式也代表了洋人期刊编辑和审稿人的思维方式。从他们的话里感觉到被认可的艰辛。本来暑假准备好好玩一玩的，看来又得忙活了。准备按他们所说，将所有相关计算程序进行整理，然后在网上公布，甚至包括源代码。现转帖他们的看法如下： 我： I think that the main problem is not the English expression, but is that one should pay his time on the train of thoughts of the paper, carefully read, think and then understand it. I know my English expression is not good, but I really think that the train of thoughts of the paper can be understood. Its logic is clear. Lizhi Du 教授 1: Exactly so .. you need to thoroughly internalize the understanding that though the logic and the train of thought inthe paper might potentially be clear to the hypothetical reader who persists, if its expression in words on the page cannot in practice be read then it does not exist. Why people don't understand the things I write down so clearly for them is a real mystery to me! :-) It can take dozens of rewrites to get apaper with a new idea through reviewers. The difference between a new idea and a wrong idea is that the new idea only takes dozens of rewrites. By the way, you might slip the paper in under the radar of a bamboozled reviewer if it were titled less provocatively. Perhaps Towards a polynomial-time algorithm ..., orA more efficient algorithm .... Remember not to mention P=NPanywhere. Steer well clear. 教授 2: Lizhi: When you say, I think that the main problem is not the English expression, but is that one should pay his timeon the train of thoughts of the paper, carefully read, think and thenunderstand it. Who are you talking about? If you mean that the *reader* should pay his time, then no, you are wrong, and yes, the main problem is indeed the English expression. For any reviewer or editor reading the paper, your proof should be a series of obviously true statements and observations that link them together. Every one of the proofs and statements they read should make them think yes, that is true. New proofs of long-standing problems are seldom found by obvious observations. They are typically found by observing something true nobody else has seen, by finding a new point of view or new relationship between problem components or by a creative twist that casts an existing problem as the same as a problem already solved in another discipline. The burden is not on the reader to understand you, the burden is upon you to write in a way the reader can readily understand, and follow, and have no logical choice but to accept your overall premise as true. And because your overall premise is P=NP, readers will struggle hard to find problems with every step in your chain of logic, because your editor and reviewers will most likely believe strongly that P != NP. Which in turn means your writing and expression must be crystal clear a teach step. Do not blame others for failing to understand your genius. As I tell students, if they are as smart as they think they are, they should be able to solve the puzzle of how to communicate their ideas in a simple way that others can understand. One simple step at a time. You can count on the fact that your editor and reviewers will be PhD level intellects that have been published themselves,and somewhat familiar with the problem. But speaking as a reviewer myself, donot count on us to put a great deal of time and effort into understanding your paper. We do that work for free and no credit or recognition, often on top of12 hour work days dealing with classes, struggling students, administrative duties and our own research. When we agree to do it, we think we are giving away two or three hours, or at worst an afternoon, to do our fair share of apolicing job that has to be done. Our free work does not obligate us to work hard on your behalf. The opposite is true: If I am giving up several hours of my small allowance of free time in order to read a paper and write a review,the writer better have worked hard to make my reading an easy job. The burden of hard work is all on you, not on the reviewer. You have to make their review easy, and if they do not understand what you write, that is not their fault, it is yours. I say all that in the spirit of helping you to get published; on this theory or some future work. For myself, I sometimes find that the process of making a proof simple, straight forward and bullet proof reveals a flaw I had not considered. That too is a useful discovery that can focus your work, or at least prevent you from publishing something false that must later be withdrawn or retracted by the journal. 我： One who may carefully read and think and then understand my paper must have two: 1,has patience and does not have such a preassumption: this unknown man can not solve such a famous and hard problem,so it MUST be wrong. 2,very strong in computer algorithm (or high ability on thinking). Only very little people are very strong in computer algorithm. If I improve my English expression, this is a little help to the reviewer. But it is still very or the same hard to understand the paper. If he or she does not have the above two, he or she still can not understand my paper. I know my English expression is not good,but I really think that the train of thoughts of the paper can be understood.Its logic is clear. 教授 1: It does not matter whether your argument is clear or unclear right now - it cannot be read. You really need to accept that, not just say that you do. By the way, one should not have to read an argument closely in order to understand a work. Your reviewers are not intrinsically less capable than you are - you should only have to point them in the right direction, step after step, and they will invent the details. A reviewer checks the work against their own understanding. So please concentrate on the narrative content, not the technicalities. Those usually can go in an appendix. Your job is to orient the reviewer and thereby allow them to deploy their own abilities in confirming your understanding. The big questions a reviewer will want to know that you are thinking about and dealing with is why your algorithmdoesn't backtrack (I guess it doesn't), and why its steps never hit a brickwall too early, and why each step is at worst polynomial complexity. Deal with those and it's already proved. If you don't answer those questions it tends to indicate to a reviewer that you cannot. If you cannot, you need to say so. There's nothing wrong with saying so. Then other people can look at those particular questions and see if they can perceive the answer. Not saying so causes the reviewer to lose faith in the plausibility of the text. The world is full of arguments in which the fault is not clear. I remember as a student for fun getting a friendly double Fields medal winner to agree to the truth of various false arguments. The human mind is easy to fool. That's why clarity in your argument is an absolute first requirement for an experienced reviewer. By the way, the last serious P=NP paperthat I read lost me at two points, one where I was competent, and one where I was not. The point where I was competent lay with the author's forray into logical semantics and the meaning of programs, and the point where I was not lay with the physics of entropy. I think the author's plausibility derived from his great reputation in a vast number of fields, which makesit not impossible that he had conceived of a proof that a specialist in asingle or fewer number of fields could not have conceived of. 我： Thank you for the answer. I understand. I will try to do something according to you and I also need help from you or fromother people. Thanks a lot! By the way, I really think to write aprogram from my algorithm is easy and clear, I donot understand why not. Lizhi Du 教授 2: Lizhi: On the contrary, your unknown status has no effect on me. As a scientist, I give exactly zero points for an author being known or admired or a great and respected scientist. I would not give Albert Einstein the benefit of the doubt. That is my job and commitment as a scientist, to accept only real proof, not proof by celebrity,or proof by insistence, proof by authority or proof by fervent belief. None of those are logic, and if you think about them for a second, you will realizethey are all very *emotional* responses, the very opposite of a rational response. I am committed to reason in science. So, likewise, an assertion is not disproved by a lack of credentials, personal circumstance, or anything else but clear logic. As for whether P=NP being such a hard problem, I agree, it is hard. It is not your lack of celebrity that makes me doubt your proof, it is your inability to explain your proof to me in termsI accept as rational. Now that may be my own incompetence in your field. But Ithink your wish that somebody will do many weeks of work for you to understand what you mean and then do you the favor of translating that into the correct language of science is a fantasy. It is up to you to make it clear. And,barring an incredible stroke of luck, in order to make it clear you will have to use the language, style, and frame work of proof your reviewers *expect* you to use. They will forgive a few deviations from that, but not many. You submitted your proof to a journal, and it was rejected. I guess my final suggestion is to begin a period of selfeducation by reading several previous issues of that journal, *not* for the proofs published there, but to extract, for your own use, atemplate of how a paper looks that they accept for publication.Make yourself a generalization of the layout. For example, how detailed and how long is the typical abstract? Or the typical introduction? How many figures are presented? How many steps of proof are there? How many sections? How long or short can they be? How much text of explanation versus mathematics? How many new terms are introduced, how are they introduced? If you can, copy common phrases used in proofs and exposition so you can use them as-is in your own paper. In short, what does a published paper*look* like, and what does it *sound* like? If you can find other papers that describe the Hamiltonian problem (for example the first proof or a textbook proof that it is NP), use that notation, or find the notation most recently used in a published paper. Do not invent your own notation. If you believe in your proof, it should beworth the work effort required to get it published. But you will have to explain it in the language and form that reviewers expect and understand. A hundred examples of that language and form can be found in the very journals you want to publish your proof, it is what they *have* published already. Youdon't have to understand those articles or their math in order to generalize a framework for your own paper, and acquire the language phrases and sentence structures already accepted by reviewers and published. P.S. I understand you think the proof is hard to understand. Making it even harder to understand by using the wrong language, wrong terminology (or invented terminology) and wrong notation just increases the probability that a reviewer will abandon their effort to understand it, and recommend rejection of your paper for lack of clarity. 教授 1: By the way, I really think to write aprogram from my algorithm is easy and clear, I do not understand why not. Then do it. Print a nice table of run times for standard hard problems up to about n=50, compared with other grandtour solvers, and that will make a persuasive start to your paper. If thenumbers don't follow your prediction, then there is something wrong somewhere! 我： I need more comments and then I can do something according to these comments. I have used some terms and expression revision from you. I already thought and did what you said. Some Chinese suggest to cooperate with an English speaking sciencist who is strong in algorihm, it may be a good idea. Thank you very much! Lizhi Du 教授 1: I already thought and did. I see no evidence of did. (Well, none for thought either,but thought is by definition not a claim of fact). 我： What you think I should do, I already did.Not only did, but also thought deeply. Thank you and wish to discuss directly on the algorithm and the proof. My English is not good but I feel that you can know what I mean by your quick brain and I think I can understand you. Surely it is a hard job for me to express myself in English. I really think that a editor or a revieweror a scientist can let his students write a program on the algorithm and thenmay trust something. This should be done easily and clearly. Thanks a lot. 教授 1: You did not do it. There is no account of a computer program in the paper, nor a comparison of its results onknown hard problems, and that's what I said you should do: Print a nice table of run times for standard hard problems up to about n=50, compared with other grandtour solvers, and that will make a persuasive start to your paper. So it is not done. When you put up a copy of the paper that contains the results from that computer program in the first section and points to a place on the web where one can get the code in order to check, then you will have done it, not before. 教授 2: Lizhi: I think you misunderstand this process. You have to do the work. You have to write the program. You have to run the program. You have to compose the results into a table and compare them to the best known methods of solving the problem. If you have students that work for you, youcan perhaps get them to do that work. A journal is not a place where you get tothrow some ideas out and expect other people to work on them for free and thengive you the credit. We have our *own* ideas for research to work on. A journal is a place to publish your own work, not to ask for work.The reviewers are there as police, to ensure your work makes sense and did notbreak any laws of physics, mathematics, or logic. And although the police are public servants, they are not there to help *you*, they are there to protect the readers of the journal from being exposed to bad science. You seem very stubbornly attached to the idea that you should not have to do anything else on this project, and that you are not going to do any more work. In my opinion, you will not get it published that way. You have to do all the work of making your theorem believable,readable, and compelling. I doubt anybody will do that for you, and particularly not for free while giving you all the credit. Even Albert Einstein was an unknown at one point, and when he was an unknown he worked all alone on all his papers until he managed to get them published. If you think you have solved P=NP, then you will have to do the same. 我： Maybe there is a little misunderstanding between us due to my English, but what you said are meaningful and helpful to me and I understand what you mean. I will try to do something according to you.And in the process I still wish to get help from you or to discuss with you. Thanks a lot. Lizhi Du 教授 1 Lizhi: I suggest you strive to construct your requests to requireless than 15 minutes of our time to respond. In fact, if you look at existing responses to questions on this forum, the average length is about how much response you can expect to get from any question you publish; a few hundred words, perhaps. I would also suggest you get help on elements that other Chinese or non-English speakers would find helpful, so we are not helping just one person with our response. So give us chunks you need help with for English, 100 to 200 words at a time, and I (and probably others)will help you put them in clear English, and critique them if need be. Speaking for myself, I am willing to help with English. But I am not going to spend hours on your research instead of my own. 我： Probably I will construct a web page to declare the program (may include sorce code) in this summer vacation. And then wish your help as following: So give us chunks you need help with for English, 100 to 200 words at a time, and I (and probably others) will helpyou put them in clear English, and critique them if need be. Thank you very much. 附： 洋人真TM有意思！ 一位洋人，系英国伯明翰大学数学专业的PhD。多次针对我的Hamilton算法论文，问这问那，挑剔这挑剔那，那天搞得我很有点不耐烦，回敬如下： “its terms are still undefined”: absolutely NO! “you need to answer the questions, not repeat your previous stuff.” But what exactly the question? the backtrack? what your backtrack means? Why I must include your backtrack? A broad cycle, 4 vertices shape a main segment, for each main segment I construct a broad cycle which contains this main segment, so I have a set of broad cycles(polynomial). Now I do many a cut and insert on them to get a useful cut and insert to get a broad cycle which contains a main segment but has less breaks than this main segment's old broad cycle. then delete the old broad cycle and put the new broad cycle into the set of broad cycles. all these are polynomial. I only need to prove that each time I can have a useful cut and insert until a hamilton cycle is got. Understand sir? donot tell me the terms you dont know, I define them in the paper, I rewrite the paper to you again? This is my process, tell me what your SMART backtract means in my process? And why my process MUST contain your smart backtract? Please note my process not your process, I donot need your process, understand Sir? 结果那家伙还要继续，把我搞火了，把那家伙大骂一通。用的是“垃圾头脑”，称：若不是看在你的母语是英语，英语表达方面的优势，若是一个Chinese像你这种头脑我根本没有兴趣与之讨论。 这么重的话这家伙竟然不生气，继续给我提出一些看法。搞得我很有点不好意思，马上客气地回应并表示歉意。 洋教授的脆弱心理与直率和误解 一美国人，在美一所高校计算机系任教，系计算机科学专业的PhD。一个多月前主动联系我表示愿意帮助我的论文英文表达。可他就是不给出具体的语言修改帮助，而是一个劲地提出问题要我解释解答，言下之意好像是我隐藏了什么关键点，而我必须用简单的一段话将关键思路解释清楚。并一个劲地强调他没有时间读长的论文，我必须简单地解释清楚。而从他的提问来看，他应该是读了论文的，可能没有读懂。我曾经问他：你既然花了这么多时间一个劲地要求我解释这解释那，为何就不能花点时间读论文呢？ 我反复说我无法简单解释，你必须花时间读论文。并且我的兴趣不在于要他帮助在思路方面，而是：读论文，修改语句表达，他就是不听。最后也没有兴趣要他帮什么忙了，感觉那家伙也不是一个能无偿帮忙的人。已经一个多月没有与之联系了。这家伙又突然给我来了一份包含直率和误解的消息（当然从这件事也可看出，我在SCI论文写作、论文的八股形式和与洋专家沟通方面欠水平）。 下面是那家伙的来信(我估计极有可能是那家伙下载并运行了我公布的程序，不然为何时隔一个多月又突然来信）： Sorry, Lizhi, Whether it is intentional or not, your message above calls me a stupid and bad scientist by asserting I operate by assumption. That does not make me want to help you. Further, your demand that I be careful and think in order to understand is effectively a claim that I am NOT usually careful and I do NOT usually think before I respond. That is false, and such insults are also not going to make me want to help you. I think we have given you the help you need: Stop using your own terms and put things into exactly the same terms with exactly the same definitions as the most recent papers on the subject. Stop insisting I must read your paper. I will not. As I said before, and you refuse to understand, I can offer you help a few minutes at a time, in conversation on this thread, with translating your broken English into standard (American) English. That was the limit of my offer, and I now withdraw that offer. I am not interested in this problem or further insulting claims in which you imply that I am stupid, lazy, and careless. Find somebody else. 张洛欣 2015-6-26 22:23 作为科网名人，你对这位洋人的反应有失身份。 主动寻求合作是一件正常的事情。如果你觉得互利，你把合作进行下去。否则，中断合作。没必要骂娘。 几年前，你的初稿曾提交到一个的理论计算机会议。你的写作实在不能让一般人读懂。所以，老外的反应不奇怪。 一个建议： 那你的大作提交到 cornell university 的 arXiv.org e-Print archive， 守株待兔。 博主回复(2015-6-27 08:44) ： 谢谢建议和留言。 这么说您是那次会议的评审专家，我对那种根本没花功夫弄懂，就武断作出结论的所谓评审专家大不以为然。我此文前些时给我院一年轻教师，也是我大学的校友，有多篇档次不错的SCI论文，看过，他的结论是：整体表达确实不太好不规范，但英文表达没有大问题，每句话的意思都可以看懂。当然，连起来理解整体难。 另外，你的“骂娘”一词也是武断地强加于人
请有志于加强对欧盟科研合作、了解欧盟科技进展和同行优势团队和科研评审规则的中国专家关注以下欧盟通知。 根据去年10月底中国农业大学从事农业信息科学的某位李教授的经验分享，他自己能够十分成功地申请诸多欧盟项目的一个重要原因（他在欧盟第六和第七框架中拿到七个科研合作项目！）就是因为自己是欧盟项目的评审专家，并通过这个环节而深入地了解欧盟项目的申请规则、并在朋友圈中结识同行的高水平专家，并成功地找好合作团队和写好自己的申请本子。 所以，奉献本身也是有回报的投资。 －－－－－－－博主评论 欧盟新一轮科研创新计划“地平线 2020 ”邀请中国专家加入同行评审专家库 欧盟 诚邀来自中国的教授和优秀专家学者加入独立专家库，参加评审“地平线 2020 ”的项目申请并监督各项相关活动。 欧盟新一轮科研创新计划“地平线 2020 ”第一批项目征集公告已于近期发布，诚邀中方专家作为同行评审专家参与对项目申请的评选。 欢迎中方优秀的科研创新学者登录欧盟专家库进行免费注册。欧洲委员会将从专家库中遴选并任命项目评审专家，被任命的评审专家将按日获得酬金，并报销此类短期任务产生的旅行住宿费用。 评审专家来自各类科研单位，如科研院所、大学、标准组织、企业或社团组织，欢迎各个领域的资深专业人士报名参加“地平线 2020 ”项目评审与监督专家库。 “地平线 2020 ”专家库所需的专业领域涵盖各个学科，如个性化健康护理；食品安全与可持续农业；蓝色发展：探索海洋潜力；数字安全；智慧城市和社区；具备竞争力的低碳能源；能效；人员流动与发展；废料：可回收、再利用和恢复的原材料；水资源创新：为欧洲提升价值；克服危机：欧洲的新思路、新战略和治理结构；灾难恢复：社会保障与安全，包括适应气候变化；以及产业领导力。 此外，所需专业领域还涵盖“地平线 2020 ”中跨学科内容，如中小企业创新；知识转移与知识产权；科研事业发展、博士培训与技能；可持续发展；国际合作等等。 关于评审专家注册的详情及步骤，请登录“地平线 2020 ”网站： http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html Horizon 2020: calls for Chinese expertsto join the European Union’s database of peer reviewers in the new EU programmefor research and innovation Horizon 2020 calls for Chinese expertsto join the European Union’s database of peer reviewers in the new EU programmefor research and innovation: Chinese professors and other distinguished specialistsare strongly encouraged to join the database of independent experts, throughwhich they can participate in the evaluation of project proposals and monitoringof actions, submitted under Horizon 2020. Followingthe recent launch of the first calls for proposals under Horizon 2020, thenew EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, the EU is now callingfor expressions of interest from Chinese experts that would like toget involved in the selection of project proposals as peer reviewers. DistinguishedChinese researchers and innovators are strongly encouraged to register as prospectiveexperts to the EU database. Registration is free of charge. Theresulting database of experts will be used by the European Commission mainly toselect and appoint peer reviewers of project proposals. Appointed experts will receivea daily honorarium and reimbursement of travel and accommodation costs for theiroccasional short-term assignments. Thiscall for expression of interest is addressed to experts from variousresearch-related organisations, for instance research institutions and agencies, universities , standards organisations,enterprises or civil society bodies. Experiencedprofessionals of all profiles are encouraged to subscribe to Horizon 2020 projectevaluation and monitoring database. Thedesired areas of expertise comprise every research discipline included in the Horizon2020 calls, such as Personalised health care; Food security and sustainableagriculture; Blue Growth: Unlocking the Potential of Seas and Oceans; Digitalsecurity; Smart cities and communities; Competitive low-carbon energy; Energy efficiency;Mobility for Growth; Waste: A Resource to recycle, reuse and recover raw materials;Water innovation: boosting its value for Europe; Overcoming the crisis: new ideas,strategies and governance structures for Europe; Disaster-resilience: safeguardingand securing society, including adapting to climate change; and Industrial Leadership. Inaddition, the looked-for areas of expertise also include aspects cross-cuttingthe entire Horizon 2020, such as: Innovation in SMEs; Knowledge transfer and intellectual propertyrights; Research career development, Doctoral training and skills; Sustainable development;International cooperation, and many more. Forfurther details and the registration procedure, please visit the Horizon 2020website: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/experts/index.html
看到许宗祥贴出的 NSFC 评审意见 ：“申请书没有认真书写，研究背景、内容等过于简单”。跟大家的反应一样，觉得气愤。很明显这是不负责任的评审意见。基金评审绝不单单是让评审者给出资助或不资助的答案，更应该给出具体的意见和建议，好让申请者更好地思考计划的课题并改进申请书。对于上面这个意见，这位评审者起码要说明哪些地方体现了申请书没有认真书写，有哪些研究背景没有介绍到，应该如何改进研究内容。类似的评审意见在科学网上已被晒了很多次，没有具体意见的评审看来带有某种普遍性。 基金委应该可以通过细化评审要求来应对不负责任的评审。所谓的细化，就是要求审者就不同的方面分别给出具体的意见和建议，而非泛泛的评论。其实申请书本身已经有了内容上的划分，评审者完全可以就立项依据（评审科学问题提出的是否恰当及是否重要）、研究内容（评审内容是否是一个有机的整体且是否体量合适）、研究方法（评审方法是否能够解决相关问题）、研究基础和团队（评审研究团队是否需要做调整等）等方面给出具体的评审意见。获得资助的申请书尚且往往有需要改进的地方，不予资助的项目更应该可以提出具体的意见。所以， 问题可能在于操作方式的细化上。比如，可以给出细致的项目评审指南供评审者参考，同时要求评审者使用细化的评审表。 前些天为法国生物多样性研究基金会（ French Foundation for Research on Biodiversity ）评审项目，觉得他们的评审表（如下）做的挺好。一方面评审者必须要就几个关键方面分别给出评价，另一方面评审表也没有划分过细而让你觉得烦。类似于期刊评审，他们让审者可以给出不让申请人看到的意见。 也可以 采用某种甄别机制，对于过于简单的评审意见，拒绝接受 。比如，如果都用网上表格式提交评审意见，那么系统可以自动计算字数，少于某个字数的意见拒绝接受；如果采用上传 word 文件的方式提交评审意见，可以要求评审者填写意见书的总字数，少于某个字数的同样可以决绝接受。 在没有细化评审要求的情况下，可以 列出不负责任的评审者名单，并且规定名单上的评审者在某个时期内不能参与基金评审 （如三年内）。一种方式是基金委工作人员通过浏览评审意见来判定，前提是他们会浏览每份项目申请书的评审意见，在我的理解里他们应该会看。另一种方式是申请人投诉。对于过于简单、不负责任的评审意见，申请人可以投诉，基金委工作人员将对应的评审者列入不负责任名单。
共同关心今年国家自然科学基金的评审问题 按语:下面文章是我刚才在网上搜索有关文件时,突然发现我三年前(2009-09- 11) 发表的文章,提出关于国家自然科学基金问题的看法和建议，现在(2012、5、11)我重新在博客上张贴出来,正值新一年基金评审时期,我希望对于参加评审者提供一点参考,也许有点帮助,并且我也愿意与大家一起,共同努力,遵循国家基金委的统一规则,把今年评审任务完成得更好! 【科技导报】探讨国家自然科学基金评审中的若干问题与建议 摘要：我国国家自然科学基金项目的评审一直是令人关注的问题。本文探讨了迄今国家基金项目评审和管理中存在的一些问题，并进行了简要分析和评论，提出了今后改进的若干建议。 关键词：国家自然科学基金，项目申请，评审制度，建议 Some Problems and Suggestions on Review of National Nature Science Fundation of China Fang Jin-Qing China Institute of Atomic Energy, Beijing, 102413 Abrtact Review result of project applications for National Nature Science Fundation of China have been a burning question. Some problems of review system and management are discussed as well as several suggestions are proposed. Key words National Nature Science Fundation of China, project applications, review system, suggestions . 20多年来，中国国家自然科学基金(NSFC)为我国基础研究提供了最重要科研资源和广阔的研究平台，对于发展我国基础和应用基础研究，对于国家的科学技术和国民经济的长远、持续、自主发展，发挥了重要的保证和促进作用，一直受到高校和科研院所科技工作者的广泛关注和重视，并取得了巨大成功，不仅科研成果辉煌，而且造就了大批杰出人才。因此，NSFC基金委的成就，倍受赞扬，誉满国内外。同样，我个人也从中受益匪浅。从NSFC委员会创办第一年，我就申请获准了一项资助项目：“等离子体现象的复杂性研究”，截止今年2009年7月完成一项结题验收的重点项目：“非线性网络的动力学复杂性研究”，可以说，20多年来，主要依靠国家自然科学基金的资助支持，使我能够从原子能科技领域的研究转向“复杂性科学”及新兴交叉课题的研究，诸如非线性科学，混沌控制与同步，网络科学等，获得和完成了八项科学前沿课题（除其他部委项目外），在我院及中国核科学和工业系统的园地里独树一帜，顺利地实现了对交叉新兴科学的跨越。这当中国家自然科学基金委功不可没，我心中一直充满了感激之情。为此，每年我也为国家自然科学基金委各学部的评审了各类项目，包括：杰出青年基金、重点项目、面上项目、科学部主任基金、理论物理专项，等等，每年评审的各类型基金项目少则十几项，多则几十项，如今年评审了约40项。可以说，我亲身经历了国家自然科学基金从申请、评审、研究到结题的全过程，积累了一些工作经验、感想和体会，因此，我在“科学网”上写了博文“略谈国家自然科学基金评审结果的看法与改进建议”，受广大网友的热情支持、热烈讨论，令我感动和启发。本文在此基础上，现整理成文，并应“科技导报”编辑的邀约，就国家自然科学基金中存在的若干问题进行分析和探讨，提出若干建议，以进一步促进国家自然科学基金“更好、更大、更高”的发展。 1．问题的提出 我国每年9、10月份，国家自然科学基金委陆续公布当年基金申请项目评审结果，无不引起巨大的反响。就拿今年来说，根据基金委网站报道：截止到9月1日，共收到各类申请100778项，与2008年同期相比，项目申请数量增加了17896项，增长22.41%，增长幅度超过了2007年的11.12%和2008年的13.48%。在各类项目申请中，青年科学基金申请量近年来增长率始终超过25%，2009年更达到34.98%；面上项目申请增长16.67%；地区科学基金增长44.46%。面上项目、青年科学基金和地区科学基金三类项目经费合计占自然科学基金总经费比例达66.8％，同比提高了约4.3个百分点，青年科学基金和地区科学基金同比均增加了29%。为科学技术人员在广泛学科领域自由探索提供了有力支持。这确实是我国科学教育界的一件可喜的大事。 同时，我们要看到：评审结果是：少数人（平均约17.78%）获得资助，兴高采烈，但是大多数人申请未获批准,约占82.22%，高达近8万2千8百多人群落败，大失所望。这是多么庞大的知识人群啊，其中不泛有许多创新项目和大批优秀人才！他们什么心情和反响都有，苦、辣、酸、甜，应有尽有。有一个朋友在第一时间写信给我说：“得知没有获得资助,心情特别难受.这可恶的自然科学基金委,象个势力眼的银行,越缺钱者,越在它那里贷不了款. 这是体制的问题!”。确实，哪是“几家欢乐？几家愁？”，简直是“几家欢乐？万家仇”啊！正如，网上一些博客说的，“来年再战者有之、义愤填膺者有之、彻底绝望者有之。”我觉得，第一种态度是很正确的，虽然今年申请失败了，但是“动力更强大了”，把功夫“用在真正做出一流科研成果上”。我十分同情和支持他们并完全表示赞同正确的态度。虽然有一大批基础好和发展潜力大年轻人一时还没有获得批准，但是我坚信：只要再接再厉，他们今后总有一天能够获得成功！因为很多科学工作者几乎都经历了类似的过程，包括我自己、同行（同事）和许多朋友们，就是沿着与科学攀登一样崎岖的道路前进的。 与参加评审项目的专家一样，我们感到作为一位科学工作者参与评审其实是我们义不容辞的责任和应尽的义务。但是，说实话，我每年承担评审的任务过多，负担实在太重了。尽管如此，我们都必须认真负责，严肃对待，严格按照基金委提出对各类项目评审的标准行事，要求自己尽量把握好标准尺度，但是由于目前资金（比例）的限制和各类标准不同，各项目熟悉程度不一，最后肯定难免出现偏差，也不得不对有些申请者割爱。其实，我审查同意资助项目的比例超过30%。即使这样，我认为：总体上说，评审结果“大体上”做到比较“公平、合理和公正”。事实上，我过去和现在的学生就多次没有申请到项目，与我合作实力很强的教授也一样屡次遭到不被批准结果，打击之大，可想而知。可以说，一般科研工作者哪能做到一开始百分之百申请成功？确实成功机会（概率）非常少。特别是，刚步入的科研大门的年轻人成功的难度就更大，通常少则2次，多则3-5次。这就需要年轻人树雄心、立壮志，多下“苦、大、深、搏”的功夫，真正做出一流科研成果，闯出新路，开辟创新项目，在一定能够在不远将来达到既定的目标。 多年来，我一直感到，国家自然科学基金的评审过程和管理中确实存在一些问题，并需要深入解决。为此,我在这里结合问题，略作分析，并提出几点改进建议。 2． 评审专家资格和标准问题 选准同行专家和依靠同行专家是搞好基金评审的一个最重要前提和基础， 只有这样才能保证做到“公平、合理和公正”。因此，一方面必须选学术水平高的同行专家，另一方面还要专家品德高，具有长远眼光，最好具有“伯乐”精神，以发现科研的千里马。评审专家应该是推荐那些项目完成获得“特优”和“优等”项目的负责人和重要成员，以及由各专业学会专业委员会推荐的符合条件的专家。严防“不熟悉”“不合格”的外行充当专家，避免误择非同行专家参与评审工作。因为确实发生过，也有同行反映过，出现一类令人“啼笑皆非”和“牛头不对马嘴”的评审意见。网友指出：“有很多工业性院所的所谓专家被选为评审专家，这些人脑子里的产品和产值观念是与自然科学研究的探索性格格不入的，不适合当评审专家。”，当然也不宜一概而论。网友说，有的基金评审者“看不懂申请书”，意见总是“官话”“套话”，什么“前期工作缺乏”“课题组不够大”等，其评论意见并不是针对课题的关键问题，这样的“同行评审"太令人疲倦了”！如此等等。我认为，如果评审的专家自己一旦遇到“不熟悉”项目，你就应有自知之明，主动拒绝审查，我就曾经拒绝过一些“不熟悉”的项目。不要“怕面子、硬撑着”，更不能有不良动机，以真正确保评审查的准确性和高质量。 另外建议，一个专家不宜审查过多项目，数量上作个规定，比如，每人审查项目不超过10-15项。希望不要搞“能者多劳”，曾经有学部领导就这么对反映意见的专家这么说。希望不要对专家层层加码，搞“疲劳战术”。必须给专家有足够的时间进行评审。否则，必然影响评审质量。同时，也必须严格执行回避规定，凡申请者提出的“回避专家”和基金委规定的回避制度，应该得到尊重，切实执行回避制度。我曾经指出过某学部某学科负责人，没有完全执行“回避专家”的规定，当时此人不承认，后来不得不离开了学部。 2． 项目的自主创新性问题 我国正在建设一个立足四个现代化的创新型的国家。无疑，坚持自主创新是我国科研的核心和灵魂，走我国自主创新的科研道路也是国家自然科学基金的一条根本原则。 对于一个创新型项目，不能提出过分的十全十美的要求，例如，要求完善的实验技术和整套系统的理论研究方案，等等。因为既然是一项创新探索性的科研课题，在研究前不可能做到机理、研究方案、技术路线等什么都解决了，谁能那么能够了如指掌？！如此这样，那还需要我们去探索和研究什么新东西？这是很不现实的要求，并不符合科研发展的一般规律。最关键点的应该是看：项目是否是真的值得探索的创新性、前沿课题，并具有发展潜力。不要一票否决。例如，有一些异想天开的“青年基金项目”、重大研究计划中“培育项目”和离经叛道的新思想、新方案和新理论，应该允许和提倡勇于探索。不必责备求全，导致失去难得的探索和发展机会，防止把刚刚诞生的“ 婴儿”被扼杀在摇篮里。 为此，保护申请书的主自创新的知识产权问题尤其必要,需要遵守我国知识产权法,一旦发现申请书中创新思想、内容和方案等被人剽窃,应该依法追究责任,进行严厉制裁.对此,基金委也应制定相关措施. 2． 改革二审制度 现有的二审做法是各学部召开一揽子项目评审查会议，邀请各路神仙，大有劳民伤财、破费经费、人力和时间精力之势，结果也不尽满意。可以说，二审会议对于面上项目是没有任何意义的,反而起反作用。首先，一审专家往往是同行，而且有机会认真仔细地阅读申请书，查阅资料，做出相对公正的评价，二审专家则不同了，来自各个领域，怎么能在短时间内对众多的申请书做出正确的判断呢？我过去亲身参加过二审会议,感到时间匆促,材料来不及看完，主要凭主审人介绍的意见，加点自己判断来给许多项目打勾（打分）.这样,确实会出现上面所说的不合理的情况.第二，二审没有给申请人答辩的机会，往往做出的结论并非正确，出现错误。因为既然二审专家来自不同学科，不熟悉非同行的申请领域，往往会凭着错误的感觉，受各种各样利益的驱使，轻率和不负责任地将自己不熟悉的人或自己的竞争对手给否定了。为了避免这种情况发生，建议增加一审专家人数从5人到7-9人(可含海外华人专家)，采取“去掉一个最高分和一个最低分”。然后由计算机自动统计专家意见和评分结果，进行自动排名，根据总分排出名次，划出分数线，留出部分名额，按此录取前面20-30名或40%更好，留有余地，争取可能其他的机会。除了重点、重大研究计划等部分学科项目进行答辩和二审外，大部分学科按照排名顺序录取即可,取消二审，避免中间层次可能产生的上述不合理问题。 5．完善补救办法 评审结果公布后，对于被否定的项目，需要采取必要的和可能的完善多种补救办法。例如，允许申请者进行复审和上访等要求，现在已经有了复审规定，按照自然科学基金委《条例》设立复审工作程序，“目的是对项目评审过程中出现的违反《条例》、相关类型项目管理办法等规定的程序性失误进行纠正。”，这确实是一个进步。但是，特别需要指出的是：“根据《条例》的有关规定，对评审专家的学术判断有不同意见，不得作为提出复审的理由。”，这条规定就奇怪得很！难道对于个别专家出现的一类“啼笑皆非”和“牛头不对马嘴”的错误的评审意见也不允许纠正和澄清吗？难道也不允许必要的学术“争鸣”吗？同时，《条例》中还缺乏提供进行必要的答辩机会。目前一般项目没有什么答辩，今后也应视项目的重要性和具体情况，能够适当考虑特殊情况。 同时，考虑允许和鼓励极少数申请者到国家自然科学基金委员会专设机构（有关部门）或学部进行必要的上访讨论和沟通，希望有一些以人才为本的举措。 6．评价论文与成果问题 曾经遇到过有些评审专家对于“研究基础”的要求：申请者必须在国际著名刊物上发表过一定数量的SCI论文，非此不可,否则不于考虑资助.这是一个格外苛刻的要求，实际上也是不适当的.因为不论国内还是国外发表的论文关键是看有没有创新性、应用性和引用情况,而不是盲目崇拜国外刊物. 我认为,中国人在国内取得的科研成果应该立足发表在国内刊物为主,这样才是合情合理的,并且应该大力鼓励，以不断增加国内诞生的优秀论文和成果，扩大对国际科学界的影响。例如，陈景润和吴文俊的创新性的论文都是发表在我国“科学通报”和“中国科学”上，影响了全世界。因此，我们需要改变观念，应该强调和提倡国内刊物为主，至少不要轻视国内刊物和国内成果，只要这样才能逐步提高我国在国际上科研大国的实际地位. 对于刚刚回国不满2-3年的“海归”，除了本单位外，国家自然科学基金委员会也要采取一定的鼓励政策，让他们当中尚未被国内同行充分认识的富有创新精神者给于必要的基金资助，这对于稳定“海归”和发展我国科研队伍、提高整体水平也是必要的。 7． 统一整合各方基金资源 自然科学基金是国家级的，虽然级别很高，但经费很少，比起一些行业项目，农业部和科技部等专项研究，简直是九牛一毛。于是，提出问题：为何不可以将国家各部委的基金项目和经费适当合并到一起呢？建议需要整合我国政府各部委的基金资源,统一申请评审同类课题的项目及其经费，避免同类研究项目重复和浪费税金人的收入与各种资源。可以适当增加重点项目，或者设些专项，以避免重复拿钱，既然都是来自国家人民的税金收入，必须把经费用得最合理和最有效。显然，目前整合起来难度很大,但是我们希望尽量得到国家有关部委的理解和支持，今后能够做出彻底改革的举措. 另外，为了克服国家基金投入不足，应该吸收和鼓励民间资金，筹集包括民营（企业、财团等）与大型国营企业的资金，这些民间基金可以与国家基金联合评审，是否统一管理应由民间基金组织讨论拟定，目的是切实用于扩大基金资助项目的比例，使整个资助比例达到或接近40%左右,使那些基础好有创新的项目获得批准，至少可以解决那些优秀学者经费的燃眉之急。这些资助的民间团体与申请者也可以双向选择,为企业创新作出贡献，互利互惠,达到双赢效果.具体做法在实践中不断创造和完善。 8．严格项目结题评估 目前，基金委对于重点项目、杰青项目和重大研究计划项目等结题工作相当重视，有明文详细规定进行严格的评估和审查答辩工作，也有打分制，这是很好的做法，希望切实贯彻执行。但是，面上项目等不少类型项目就缺乏类似的做法，今后需要加强。特别规定：对于项目完成不好者，在3－5年内不得申请，以示警告！对于完成“特优”和“优”的项目负责人和重要成员，实行一定的鼓励政策和措施，例如延续、滚动项目，优先考虑新项目，推荐他们为评审专家等。 致谢：作者在科学网上的博文得到许多网友热情支持、有益的评论与建设性建议，我这里已经吸收他们的意见。但是，他们或没有留名或看不出来，只好在此一并致谢。 参考文献 国家自然科学基金网站， http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/ 方锦清，最新补充:略谈对基金评审结果的看法和改进建议，科学网地址： http://www.sciencenet. ... spx?id=253820 略谈对基金评审结果的看法和改进建议 最新补充摘要:受博客网友献言献策的感动与启发,把建议从8点增加到10点,现在再扩大到14点.最新建议包括:改革二审制度,整合各部基金资源,吸收民间资金扩大资助比例(40-50%),筹备基金专题论坛等.请大家群策群力,继续评论,完善建议,推动改革. 近日，国家自然科学基金委开始陆续公布今年申请项目评审结果，引起了巨大反响。因为在2009年度共受理项目申请93839项中，决定资助只有17858项，不予资助72964项，当然还有一些类型项目正在评审过程中。可见：少数人（19.03%）兴高采烈，大多数人80.97%，有近7万3千人未获批准,令这么庞大人群(其中必有许多优秀人才)大失所望，当然什么心情和反响，苦、辣、酸、甜，应有尽有。我就有一个朋友第一时间写信给我说：“得知没有获得资助,心情特别难受.这可恶的自然科学基金委,象个势力眼的银行,越缺钱者,越在它那里贷不了款. 这是体制的问题!”依我看：哪是“几家欢乐？几家仇？”，而简直是“几家欢乐？万家仇！”啊。正如，网上一些博客说的，什么情况都有，失败者确实反应不一，“来年再战者有之、义愤填膺者有之、彻底绝望者有之。”，我觉得，第一种态度最正确的，虽然今年申请失败了，但是“动力更强大了”，把功夫“用在真正做出一流科研成果上”。我完全表示赞同，我确实十分同情和支持他们，特别是基础好和发展潜力大年轻人一时没有获得批准，但是我坚信：只要再接再厉，他们今后总有一天能够获得成功！因为我和很多同行也经历了类似的过程。 今年，我也为国家自然科学基金委各学部不同类型项目（六类，具体从略）评审了共约40项申请书，说实话，我感到负担太重了。差不多每年少则十几个，多则几十个。我都必须认真负责，严肃对待。虽然按照基金委提出对各类项目评审的标准行事，要求自己尽量把握好标准尺度，但是由于资金（比例）的限制和各类标准不同，项目熟悉程度不一，最后肯定难免有偏差，也不得不对有些申请者割爱,但是我同意资助项目的比例超过30%。即使这样，我认为：总体上说，评审结果“大体上”是公平、合理和公正的。事实上，我过去和现在的学生就多次没有申请到项目，与我合作实力很强的教授也一样屡次遭到不被批准结果，打击之大，可想而知。可以说，一般科研工作者没有能做到百分之百申请成功？确实非常少见。特别是刚步入的年轻人难度更大。这就需要年轻人多下苦大功夫，真正做出一流科研成果，闯出新路，开辟创新项目。 多年来，我一直认为，国家自然科学基金评审中仍然存在一些问题，并需要深入解决，为此,这里结合问题略提几点建议。 （1） 首先评审专家要选准确，品德和专业水准都要高，还要有眼光，或伯乐精神。千万防止“不熟悉”项目的专家参与，被请评审的专家自己一旦遇到“不熟悉”项目，要有自知之明，主动拒绝审查。我就拒绝过一些项目。 （2） 一个专家不宜审查过多项目，数量上作个规定，比如，不超过10-15个项目。希望不要搞“能者多劳”（有个学部领导就这么对反映意见的专家这么说），必须给专家有足够的时间进行评审。否则，必然影响评审质量。 （3） 严格执行回避规定，凡申请者提出的“回避专家”应该得到尊重，切实回避。我曾经指出过某学部没有完全执行规定，有人不承认，后来此人离开了学部。 （4） 一个创新项目不能过分要求十全十美（完善的实验或理论方案等）。因为既然是一项创新探索性的科研课题，在研究前不可能做到机理、研究方案、技术路线等什么都解决了，谁能那么能够了如指掌？！如此那还研究什么？这是很不现实的要求，完全不符合科研发展的一般规律。最关键的应该是看：项目是否是真的值得探索的创新性课题，有发展潜力。一些“青年基金项目”和“培育项目”等往往被责备求全，失去难得机会。 （5） 评审结果公布后，需要采取必要的多种补救办法，例如允许申请者进行复审要求，现在已经有了。但是缺乏进行必要的答辩机会。一般项目目前没有什么答辩，今后也应视不同情况加以考虑。 （6） 考虑允许和鼓励极少数申请者到国家自然科学基金委员会专设机构（有关部门）或学部进行必要的上访讨论和沟通。 （7） 对于刚刚回国不满2-3年的“海归”，除了本单位外，国家自然科学基金委员会要采取有一定的鼓励政策，让他们获得必要的基金资助，这对于稳定“海归”和发展我国科研队伍、提高整体水平也是不必可少的。 （8） 国家自然科学基金委员会各部门需要进一步提高服务质量和政策水平，特别是每年临时招去的工作人员和办事员。 (9) 曾经遇到过有些评审专家非要申请者必须在国际著名刊物上发表过SCI论文不可,才能考虑资助.这个格外苛刻要求也是不适当的.不论国内还是国外发表的论文关键是看有没有创新性、应用性和引用情况,而不是盲目崇拜国外刊物.我认为,中国人在国内取得的科研成果应该立足发表在国内刊物为主,这样才是合情合理的,并且应该大力鼓励，以不断增加国内诞生的优秀论文和国际影响,也只要这样才能逐步提高我国在国际上科研大国的实际地位. (10) 申请书的知识产权问题也必须得到保护,需要遵守我国知识产权法,一旦发现申请书被剽窃,应该依法追究责任,进行严厉制裁.对此,基金委也应制定相关措施. (11) 改革二审制度. 如网友所述，现有的二审劳民伤财,花费众多的经费、人力和时间精力，结果不尽满意。我同意增加一审专家人数目到7-9人(含海外华人专家)，专家意见和评分由计算机自动统计结果，进行自动排名，按此录取前面30-40名。除了重点、重大研究计划等部分学科项目进行答辩和二审外，大部分学科应该按照排名顺序录取即可,避免中间层次可能产生的问题。 （12） 整合各部委的基金资源,统一申请评审类似课题的项目，避免同类研究项目重复和浪费经费与各种资源。也许难度很大,但是应该尽量力争有关部委的理解和支持. （13） 吸收民间资金，筹集包括民营（企业、财团等）与大型国营企业的资金，这些民间基金可以与国家基金联合评审，是否统一管理将来应由民间基金组织讨论拟定，目的是切实用于扩大资助的比例，使整个资助比例达到或接近40-50%,使那些基础好有创新的项目被批准，解决有些优秀学者经费的燃眉之急。同时,这些资助的民间团体与申请者也可以双向选择,互利互惠,达到双赢效果. （14） 可以考虑筹备适当的时间,拟举办一次中型“基金改革专题论坛”，或网上专题论坛,大家群策群力,集思广益，敞开思想,进一步完善基金评审制度，以促进和提高我国整体科研水平。 本文引用地址： http://www.sciencenet. ... spx?id=253820
这个是sciscoop.com上总结的2010年The journal Environmental Microbiology上最狠的评审意见： 其中之一：This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future. 其中之二：The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about. ...... 详见: http://www.sciscoop.com/the-truth-about-scientific-peer-review.html
2010 年10月27日 ，由所馆组织承办的第四次中国生物医学期刊入选世界卫生组织（WHO）西太区医学索引（The Western Pacific Region Index Medicus, WPRIM）评审会议在北京召开。人民军医出版社副社长贾万年、中国疾控中心信息中心副主任苏雪梅、中华医学会杂志社社长助理刘冰以及所馆长代涛等10多位相关领域专家参加了此次评审。 WPRIM 是全球卫生图书馆（Global Health Library, GHL）的一个重要组成部分，主要收录世界卫生组织西太平洋地区成员国出版的覆盖卫生、生物医学领域的期刊及灰色文献的题录（包括文摘）信息。所馆作为WPRIM中国生物医学期刊评审委员会主任单位，过去三年中已先后组织举办三次评审会议，共评选出201种国内优秀的生物医学期刊为WPRIM收录期刊。 第四批WPRIM期刊评审工作于9月正式开展，截止到10月26日，WPRIM中国生物医学期刊评审委员会共收到有效申请91份。根据WPRIM中国生物医学期刊评审标准，同时综合考虑多种学术评价指标，经评审委员会评议，共向WHO西太区期刊评审委员会推荐22种中国生物医学期刊入选WPRIM。
施，饶为国内生命科学研究的领军人物，should be well funded，尚如此批评中国的基金评审制度，可见问题之普遍, 严重，冰冻三尺，非一日之寒。原因讲得很好，一为制度'system', 二为文化culture. 或许，国家自然科学基金尚依科研水平为评判标准，但超大项目'megaproject'呢？谁来监督？ 撑死几个，饿死一批的现象，非中国所独有。但研究经费上贿赂，桌底交易，回扣却为西方文化所不容。 如此，这个PI难免身败名裂。 英文原文用了几个有意思的词：'To obtain major grants in China, that doing good research is not as important as schmoozing with powerful ....'. 这个schmooze, 意为chat in a friendly way。但这个词尚不能说出巴结'的意思。 '... corrupts the spirit, and stymies innovation', stymy即hinder，阻碍； 最后'become the major pillar of a system that nurtures, rather than squanders, the innovation potential of China', 这里squander是waste的意思。 为这篇文章喝彩。 英文原文
前几天给我们这个领域一个有名的刊物审了一篇 Letter 。几个回合下来，尽管另一个 Referee 不同意他们发，尽管笔者最后的修改意见作者坚持不接受，还是同意他们发表了。理由是： The other referee was right ， keeping journals high standard would greatly benefit the community and readers. However, the paper truly showed certain high quality and important results, though the authors a bit disappointed me for refusing further improving their work. I hope they would soon write a long paper to do it. 主编的回信： Thankyouforyoureffortsinreviewingmanuscriptxxxxxxxx.Basedinlarge partonyourcomments,theEditorshaveacceptedthispaper. Yourparticipationinthereviewofthispaperandyoursupportforour journalaregreatlyappreciated. 我不认识这些作者他们显然是新人。感觉很复杂：一方面，就这么放过了其实对这些新手不好；另一方面，这篇文章总体来说质量还是达到了要求，我希望他们做的其实是一些锦上添花的工作。近来大家把 Letters 看得很重，但是其实更重要的是之后报告详尽结果的长文章。有些不足之处可以在那篇长文章里弥补。这也是笔者建议那些作者的。 还有一个感觉：另一个 referee 其实是不同意就这么发的。一旦同行们有任何质疑：怎么这样的文章就让它发了？主编、笔者是要和那些作者们共同承担责任的。 这使得笔者想起所谓的匿名评审、甚至所谓双盲审。 笔者的意见，评审人应该和作者一样，写下自己的名字。事实上，这篇文章（包括博士学位论文）经过你的评审发了，你在某种意义上就成为共同作者而且是那种没有任何 credit 却要承担所有可能错误的责任的共同作者！ 笔者担任 Associate Editor 的一个刊物多年来一直提倡 referee 公开自己名字。笔者对此是非常支持的。
标签: 评审
