科研评价方法与实证研究
|
摘要
二战以来,科学技术发展迅猛,已经成为改善人类生活、推动社会进步的重要力量。科学研究领域已经成为世界各国竞争的重点和焦点领域,成为综合国力中决定性和关键性的因素。在这种背景下,科学研究活动已经不再仅仅是科学家“好奇心”驱动的个人行为,而是政府战略发展规划的重要组成部分。随着政府在科学研究领域投入的急剧增长,科研评价已经不只是科学系统自身关注的重要问题,而成为政府和社会共同关注的重要问题。合理有效的科研评价机制对于优化科研资源的配置、激发研究人员的创新潜力、营造科技创新环境以及推进国家科技创新体系的建立和发展都具有重要的意义。科学研究领域的评价活动依赖于合理规范的评价环境和机制,更需要与科学研究的特点相适应的评价方法。本文在总结国内外科研评价的研究和实践的基础上,对科研评价方法展开系统研究。论文强调理论与实践相结合,重点研究具有较高应用价值的科研评价方法,并结合实际数据进行实证研究。论文从科研评价的信息基础出发,将科研评价方法分为三类:基于专家知识的主观评价方法、基于统计数据的客观评价方法和基于系统模型的综合评价方法。论文按照这种分类分别对同行评议方法、德尔菲法、文献计量方法、层次分析法和综合评价法等科研评价方法展开研究。之所以对这些方法展开重点研究,是因为同行评议方法和文献计量方法是科研评价的特征方法,而德尔菲法、层次分析法和综合评价方法也是在科研评价活动中具有较高应用价值的方法。全文共七章,可分为四大部分:
第一部分包括引言(第一章)和科研评价概述(第二章)。引言部分阐述了科研评价方法研究的理论价值和现实意义,系统分析了国内外科研评价方法研究和应用的现状和问题,指出了在理论研究和实际应用之间的空白,分析了这种空白存在的原因,并以此为出发点,阐述了本文研究的指导思想,构建了论文研究的内容体系。第二章介绍了科研评价的几个发展阶段,分析了科研评价的几种主要模式,提出了科研评价应该遵循的原则,并在一般意义上阐述了科研评价的数据收集和检验方法以及评价结果的信度检验和效度检验方法。
第二部分对同行评议方法(第三章)和德尔菲法(第四章)等基于专家知识的主观评价方法进行了研究。对于同行评议方法,论文结合国内外同行评议的实践情况,讨论了同行评议方法实施的几种主要形式及其主要优缺点;分析了同行专家选择的主要原则;探讨了同行评议实施过程中的规范与约束问题;并对网络环境下的同行评议方法的发展作了展望。对于德尔菲法,在介绍了德尔菲法的特点与实施步骤之后,论文讨论了德尔菲法的问卷设计和数据处理方法,探讨了德尔菲法的变型方法,并比较了德尔菲法和一般专家调查法的优缺点和适用范围,最后,作者结合一个实例详细介绍了德尔菲法的应用过程,并对实例进行了评析。
第三部分重点研究了基于统计数据的客观评价方法——文献计量方法(第五章)。作者首先介绍了常用于科研评价实践的文献计量指标及其数据源,然后对文献分布规律、科学生产率和引文分析方法和指标等进行了研究,并对文献计量向信息计量发展的趋势进行了探讨。之后,作者介绍了文献计量方法在科研评价中的主要应用,并提出了几个应该注意的问题:①文献计量方法比较适合宏观和中观评价;②应该注意不同学科的引文差异和评价对象的规模对结果的影响;③要保证数据源的客观性和代表性;④警惕文献计量指标的滥用和对某些指标的片面强调。最后,作者进行了两项实证研究,第一项实证研究提出了学科自引率和自被引率的概念,并将其用于对学科的发展评价,取得了良好的效果;第二项实证研究对我国627所高校的自报科研绩效评估指标和源生科研绩效评估指标的分布规律作了拟合研究,研究结果肯定了国内以前的同类研究的结论,即高校的自报科研绩效评估指标的客观性较差;同时也指出了国内有关研究中的“排序-频度”分布拟合方法的瑕疵与不足,并提出了更科学的科研指标分布拟合方法——“等级-频度”分布拟合,并通过实证分析证明了这种拟合方法的科学性。
第四部分研究了基于系统模型的综合评价方法——层次分析法(第六章)和综合评价法(第七章)。实际上,层次分析法也是一种综合评价法,但其独特的建模思想和较高的应用价值使作者觉得有必要对其单列一章进行研究。在第六章,作者详细介绍了层次分析法的基本原理和实施过程,探讨了层次分析法的群组决策方法,并提出了一种简明的群组决策专家定权方法,并通过实证研究进行了验证。在实证研究中,作者通过层次分析法建立了高校科研实力指标体系,验证了层次分析法用于科研评价实践的有效性。对于一般综合评价方法,第七章从指标体系的建立、指标权重的确定、基础指标评价值的确定、评价数据合成模型四个方面对综合评价方法进行了较全面的研究。作者重点研究了指标权重的确定方法,对确定权重的不同方法进行了比较分析,指出了各自的缺陷与不足。最后,作者进行了两项实证研究。第一项实证研究对主成分分析法用于综合评价的可行性进行了研究,在经过严谨的分析后,作者提出了主成分分析法并不适用于综合指标评价的新观点,其原因是对数据的相关性判断并不能代表对指标的价值判断。在第二项实证研究中,作者用综合指标评价法对627所高校的科研实力进行了排序,并在研究中强调了“规模与效率并重”的思想。
本论文是武汉大学教改研究项目《高校学科专业评价与调整对策研究》(武大教字[2003]193)和武汉大学社科研究项目《中国高校社会科学竞争力评价研究》(武大科文字[2003]31号)的成果之一。
After the World War II, the development of science and technology has made great progress. And the science and technology has become the great power to improve the human life and promote the social advancement. Nowadays, the domain of scientific research has become the vital and focal field of competition between countries in the world, and also it’s the crucial and final factor of national power. In this context, not only is the scientific research individual work, but it also is the significant part of national strategic programming. As the government investment in scientific research keeps increasing, the evaluation of scientific research is not only the issue of scientific community itself, but also the concernful issue of government and society. A sound and valid research evaluation system will make a great difference for the optimizing of the allocating of research resources, the incenting scientific researchers, the creating an environment conducive to scientific innovation and the building and development of the national innovation system. The evaluation activities in scientific research area depend on the sound and normative evaluation environment. And moreover, they depend on the evaluation methods adaptive to the characteristics of scientific research. Based on the review of domestic and overseas studies and practice on the methods of scientific research, this dissertation studies the scientific research evaluation methods systemically. The study aims to the combination of theory and practice and highlights the evaluation methods that may have much value in practice. And application studies have been conducted with the practical data.
According to the information base of evaluation, there are three kinds of methods for research evaluation. They are the subjective evaluation methods based on the expertise, the objective evaluation methods based on the statistical data and the systemic evaluation methods based on the synthetic model. Among all these three sorts of methods, peer review method, Delphi method, Bibliometric method, AHP method and synthetic evaluation method are highlighted in this dissertation. Considering peer review method and Bibliometric method are characteristic methods for research evaluation, they are the emphases in the study. Delphi method, AHP method and synthetic evaluation method are also widely used in the research evaluation practice, so it is necessary to include them in this study.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters, and they fall into four parts:
The first part includes the foreword of the dissertation (the 1st chapter) and the introduction to research evaluation (the 2nd chapter). In the foreword of the dissertation, author identified the academic value and practical significance of the study on the methods of research evaluation. Then the status quo and the issue about the domestic and foreign studies on research evaluation methods are reviewed and analyzed. Author retrieved the blank spots between the academic study and practical application about research evaluation methods and the reason that the blank spots engendered. Based on these analyses, the guidelines and the main contents of this dissertation are expounded. In the 2nd chapter, the three successive phases of research evaluation development were reviewed firstly. Then the main patterns and important principles of research evaluation were discussed. Afterward, the methods about data collection and data verifying in research evaluation were expatiated, and the reliability and validity verifying methods were also discussed.
The second part aims to study the subjective evaluation methods based on the expertise, especially peer review method (the 3rd chapter) and Delphi method (the 4th chapter). After the review of the application practice of peer review method, author discussed the implemental forms of peer review method, such as Mail-only, Panel-only and Mail + Panel and so on. And the merits and defects of the forms were compared. Hereafter, author discussed the fundamental principles of the selection of peers. Then the criterion and restriction of the peer review was explored and the development of peer review method in the Internet environment was expatiated. When comes to Delphi method, the dissertation introduced the characteristics and the application process of Delphi method in the first place. Then the methods of questionnaire design and data analysis were discussed. Thereafter, author compared the advantage and disadvantage of Delphi method and general expert- investigate methods as well as their application area. In the end of this part, an applied example of Delphi method was expanded and remarked by the author.
The third part concerned about the objective evaluation methods based on the statistical data. And author laid a strong emphasis on the study of bibliometric method (the 5th chapter). First of all, the bibliometric indicators that often used in research evaluation activity were studied, and their data sources were also introduced. Then, author studied the methods usually used in the publications distribution research, scientific productivity research and citation analysis, and the trend of development from bibliometric to informetrics was also discussed. Afterwards, the main applications of bibliometric method in research evaluation were studied. And then, author presented four issues that enough attention should be paid to: first, bibliometric method is very fit for macrocosmic and medicosmic evaluation activities, but not very fit for microcosmic evaluation activities; second, good regard should be paid to the difference of citation behavior in different subject, and the influence of the scale of the evaluation object should also be considered; third, the reliability and validity of the data sources should be ensured; fourth, keep cautious to the misusing, misapplying and unilateral emphasis of bibliometric indicators. In the last part of the chapter, two application researches were conducted. In the first application research, author advanced the conceptions of subject self-citing rate and subject self-citation rate and applied them in the subject evaluation. The results based on the practical data proved the method was valid. The second application research studied the distribution of two kinds of research indicators of Chinese university, which are self-reported indicator and source-derived indicator. The research shows that self-reported indicators have less reliability and authenticity than source-derived indicators. This result is consistent with the previous similar study conducted by professor Liang Liming (2000). However, the flaw and demerit of sort order- frequency distribution fit method used by professor Liang Liming was detected in the research, and author advanced a new ranking- frequency distribution fit method. The new method was applied in the study based on the data of 627 universities, and its properness and validity was proved by the result.
The fourth part studied the systemic evaluation methods based on the synthetic model, such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (the 6th chapter) and synthetic evaluation method (the 7th chapter) and so on. Actually, AHP method is a kind of synthetic evaluation method, but its unique thought of modeling and wide applications make it necessary to study it in a unique chapter. In the 6th chapter, the fundamental principle and the application process of AHP were introduced firstly. Then author discussed the group decision method of AHP and advanced a concise group decision model. Subsequently, an AHP application research was conducted to establish a university research evaluation system, and group decision model was confirmed in the application research. In the last chapter, synthetic evaluation method was studied at four aspects, which were methods of establishing indicator system, making weights of indicators, measuring basic indicators and synthesizing the data of different indicators. Author highlighted the making weight methods (MWMs) and identified the defects of different MWMs. In the end, two application researches were conducted. The first application research studied the feasibility of Principle Component Analysis (PCA) in research evaluation and found that PCA does not fit for research evaluation. The reason is the correlation estimation of data can not substitute the value judgment of indicators. In the second application research, the research evaluation of Chinese university was conducted, and equal attention was paid to the research efficiency as well as the research scale in the evaluation.
第一部分包括引言(第一章)和科研评价概述(第二章)。引言部分阐述了科研评价方法研究的理论价值和现实意义,系统分析了国内外科研评价方法研究和应用的现状和问题,指出了在理论研究和实际应用之间的空白,分析了这种空白存在的原因,并以此为出发点,阐述了本文研究的指导思想,构建了论文研究的内容体系。第二章介绍了科研评价的几个发展阶段,分析了科研评价的几种主要模式,提出了科研评价应该遵循的原则,并在一般意义上阐述了科研评价的数据收集和检验方法以及评价结果的信度检验和效度检验方法。
第二部分对同行评议方法(第三章)和德尔菲法(第四章)等基于专家知识的主观评价方法进行了研究。对于同行评议方法,论文结合国内外同行评议的实践情况,讨论了同行评议方法实施的几种主要形式及其主要优缺点;分析了同行专家选择的主要原则;探讨了同行评议实施过程中的规范与约束问题;并对网络环境下的同行评议方法的发展作了展望。对于德尔菲法,在介绍了德尔菲法的特点与实施步骤之后,论文讨论了德尔菲法的问卷设计和数据处理方法,探讨了德尔菲法的变型方法,并比较了德尔菲法和一般专家调查法的优缺点和适用范围,最后,作者结合一个实例详细介绍了德尔菲法的应用过程,并对实例进行了评析。
第三部分重点研究了基于统计数据的客观评价方法——文献计量方法(第五章)。作者首先介绍了常用于科研评价实践的文献计量指标及其数据源,然后对文献分布规律、科学生产率和引文分析方法和指标等进行了研究,并对文献计量向信息计量发展的趋势进行了探讨。之后,作者介绍了文献计量方法在科研评价中的主要应用,并提出了几个应该注意的问题:①文献计量方法比较适合宏观和中观评价;②应该注意不同学科的引文差异和评价对象的规模对结果的影响;③要保证数据源的客观性和代表性;④警惕文献计量指标的滥用和对某些指标的片面强调。最后,作者进行了两项实证研究,第一项实证研究提出了学科自引率和自被引率的概念,并将其用于对学科的发展评价,取得了良好的效果;第二项实证研究对我国627所高校的自报科研绩效评估指标和源生科研绩效评估指标的分布规律作了拟合研究,研究结果肯定了国内以前的同类研究的结论,即高校的自报科研绩效评估指标的客观性较差;同时也指出了国内有关研究中的“排序-频度”分布拟合方法的瑕疵与不足,并提出了更科学的科研指标分布拟合方法——“等级-频度”分布拟合,并通过实证分析证明了这种拟合方法的科学性。
第四部分研究了基于系统模型的综合评价方法——层次分析法(第六章)和综合评价法(第七章)。实际上,层次分析法也是一种综合评价法,但其独特的建模思想和较高的应用价值使作者觉得有必要对其单列一章进行研究。在第六章,作者详细介绍了层次分析法的基本原理和实施过程,探讨了层次分析法的群组决策方法,并提出了一种简明的群组决策专家定权方法,并通过实证研究进行了验证。在实证研究中,作者通过层次分析法建立了高校科研实力指标体系,验证了层次分析法用于科研评价实践的有效性。对于一般综合评价方法,第七章从指标体系的建立、指标权重的确定、基础指标评价值的确定、评价数据合成模型四个方面对综合评价方法进行了较全面的研究。作者重点研究了指标权重的确定方法,对确定权重的不同方法进行了比较分析,指出了各自的缺陷与不足。最后,作者进行了两项实证研究。第一项实证研究对主成分分析法用于综合评价的可行性进行了研究,在经过严谨的分析后,作者提出了主成分分析法并不适用于综合指标评价的新观点,其原因是对数据的相关性判断并不能代表对指标的价值判断。在第二项实证研究中,作者用综合指标评价法对627所高校的科研实力进行了排序,并在研究中强调了“规模与效率并重”的思想。
本论文是武汉大学教改研究项目《高校学科专业评价与调整对策研究》(武大教字[2003]193)和武汉大学社科研究项目《中国高校社会科学竞争力评价研究》(武大科文字[2003]31号)的成果之一。
After the World War II, the development of science and technology has made great progress. And the science and technology has become the great power to improve the human life and promote the social advancement. Nowadays, the domain of scientific research has become the vital and focal field of competition between countries in the world, and also it’s the crucial and final factor of national power. In this context, not only is the scientific research individual work, but it also is the significant part of national strategic programming. As the government investment in scientific research keeps increasing, the evaluation of scientific research is not only the issue of scientific community itself, but also the concernful issue of government and society. A sound and valid research evaluation system will make a great difference for the optimizing of the allocating of research resources, the incenting scientific researchers, the creating an environment conducive to scientific innovation and the building and development of the national innovation system. The evaluation activities in scientific research area depend on the sound and normative evaluation environment. And moreover, they depend on the evaluation methods adaptive to the characteristics of scientific research. Based on the review of domestic and overseas studies and practice on the methods of scientific research, this dissertation studies the scientific research evaluation methods systemically. The study aims to the combination of theory and practice and highlights the evaluation methods that may have much value in practice. And application studies have been conducted with the practical data.
According to the information base of evaluation, there are three kinds of methods for research evaluation. They are the subjective evaluation methods based on the expertise, the objective evaluation methods based on the statistical data and the systemic evaluation methods based on the synthetic model. Among all these three sorts of methods, peer review method, Delphi method, Bibliometric method, AHP method and synthetic evaluation method are highlighted in this dissertation. Considering peer review method and Bibliometric method are characteristic methods for research evaluation, they are the emphases in the study. Delphi method, AHP method and synthetic evaluation method are also widely used in the research evaluation practice, so it is necessary to include them in this study.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters, and they fall into four parts:
The first part includes the foreword of the dissertation (the 1st chapter) and the introduction to research evaluation (the 2nd chapter). In the foreword of the dissertation, author identified the academic value and practical significance of the study on the methods of research evaluation. Then the status quo and the issue about the domestic and foreign studies on research evaluation methods are reviewed and analyzed. Author retrieved the blank spots between the academic study and practical application about research evaluation methods and the reason that the blank spots engendered. Based on these analyses, the guidelines and the main contents of this dissertation are expounded. In the 2nd chapter, the three successive phases of research evaluation development were reviewed firstly. Then the main patterns and important principles of research evaluation were discussed. Afterward, the methods about data collection and data verifying in research evaluation were expatiated, and the reliability and validity verifying methods were also discussed.
The second part aims to study the subjective evaluation methods based on the expertise, especially peer review method (the 3rd chapter) and Delphi method (the 4th chapter). After the review of the application practice of peer review method, author discussed the implemental forms of peer review method, such as Mail-only, Panel-only and Mail + Panel and so on. And the merits and defects of the forms were compared. Hereafter, author discussed the fundamental principles of the selection of peers. Then the criterion and restriction of the peer review was explored and the development of peer review method in the Internet environment was expatiated. When comes to Delphi method, the dissertation introduced the characteristics and the application process of Delphi method in the first place. Then the methods of questionnaire design and data analysis were discussed. Thereafter, author compared the advantage and disadvantage of Delphi method and general expert- investigate methods as well as their application area. In the end of this part, an applied example of Delphi method was expanded and remarked by the author.
The third part concerned about the objective evaluation methods based on the statistical data. And author laid a strong emphasis on the study of bibliometric method (the 5th chapter). First of all, the bibliometric indicators that often used in research evaluation activity were studied, and their data sources were also introduced. Then, author studied the methods usually used in the publications distribution research, scientific productivity research and citation analysis, and the trend of development from bibliometric to informetrics was also discussed. Afterwards, the main applications of bibliometric method in research evaluation were studied. And then, author presented four issues that enough attention should be paid to: first, bibliometric method is very fit for macrocosmic and medicosmic evaluation activities, but not very fit for microcosmic evaluation activities; second, good regard should be paid to the difference of citation behavior in different subject, and the influence of the scale of the evaluation object should also be considered; third, the reliability and validity of the data sources should be ensured; fourth, keep cautious to the misusing, misapplying and unilateral emphasis of bibliometric indicators. In the last part of the chapter, two application researches were conducted. In the first application research, author advanced the conceptions of subject self-citing rate and subject self-citation rate and applied them in the subject evaluation. The results based on the practical data proved the method was valid. The second application research studied the distribution of two kinds of research indicators of Chinese university, which are self-reported indicator and source-derived indicator. The research shows that self-reported indicators have less reliability and authenticity than source-derived indicators. This result is consistent with the previous similar study conducted by professor Liang Liming (2000). However, the flaw and demerit of sort order- frequency distribution fit method used by professor Liang Liming was detected in the research, and author advanced a new ranking- frequency distribution fit method. The new method was applied in the study based on the data of 627 universities, and its properness and validity was proved by the result.
The fourth part studied the systemic evaluation methods based on the synthetic model, such as Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (the 6th chapter) and synthetic evaluation method (the 7th chapter) and so on. Actually, AHP method is a kind of synthetic evaluation method, but its unique thought of modeling and wide applications make it necessary to study it in a unique chapter. In the 6th chapter, the fundamental principle and the application process of AHP were introduced firstly. Then author discussed the group decision method of AHP and advanced a concise group decision model. Subsequently, an AHP application research was conducted to establish a university research evaluation system, and group decision model was confirmed in the application research. In the last chapter, synthetic evaluation method was studied at four aspects, which were methods of establishing indicator system, making weights of indicators, measuring basic indicators and synthesizing the data of different indicators. Author highlighted the making weight methods (MWMs) and identified the defects of different MWMs. In the end, two application researches were conducted. The first application research studied the feasibility of Principle Component Analysis (PCA) in research evaluation and found that PCA does not fit for research evaluation. The reason is the correlation estimation of data can not substitute the value judgment of indicators. In the second application research, the research evaluation of Chinese university was conducted, and equal attention was paid to the research efficiency as well as the research scale in the evaluation.
引文
①徐冠华.加强高校原始性创新能力建设——在“高等学校加强科技创新工作座谈会”开幕式上的讲话,2002年7月31日,http://www.edu.cn/20021021/3070472.shtml
②刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择.武汉大学博士论文,2002年4月,pp1
③国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp27
①国家科技评估中心.评估概览:日本,http://211.94.158.79:100/news/displaynews/displaymod/mod13.asp?id=305
②国家科技评估中心.国际评估概述,http://211.94.158.79:100/news/displaynews/displaymod/mod13.asp?id=298
①Rinia, E.J., et al. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 1998, 27, pp95–107.
②其网址为http://www..cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics
①国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp45
②同上
①同国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp45
①这一划分参见李晓轩,石兵.中国科学院研究所评价浅议.中国科学院院刊,2003(2),pp132
②国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp26
③同②
④同②
①转引自:吴岱明.科学研究方法学.长沙:湖南人民出版社,1987,pp8
②转引自:罗长坤,张东旭,黄建军.医学科研选题及其创新.中华医学科研管理杂志,2001(3),pp34
③王凭慧.科学研究项目评估方法综述.科研管理,1999(3)
④李德顺.价值论.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1986,pp108
①参见:侯定丕.王战军.非线性评估的理论探索与应用.合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2000,pp2
②J.科尔,S.科尔:《科学界的社会分层》,华夏出版社1989年版,第17页,转引自张彦.论科学与技术在社会学上的三个主要区别.南京社会科学,1998(8),pp29～34
③刘作义,陈晓田.科学研究评价的性质、作用、方法及程序.科研管理,2002(2),pp34
①侯定丕.王战军.非线性评估的理论探索与应用.合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2000,pp91
②同上
①参见国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)课题评审程序规范(试行)第四条
②Michael J Larhin.Pressure to publish stifles young talent, Nature, 1999,397,pp467
26这个分类参见:国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年,pp10
27联合国开发计划署评估办公室编.面向结果的监督与评估.国家科技评估中心译.北京:科学出版社,1999,pp22
28参见《科学技术评价暂行办法(征求意见稿)》(2003年8月5日公布)第三十一条
29国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年,pp32
32龚旭.美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估及其启示(之三)——对我们工作的几点启示,情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),2003年第30期(总第213期)
33[美]Earl Babbie著,邱泽奇译.社会研究方法基础.北京:华夏出版社,2002,pp104
34这些方法的具体内容参见①,pp105-107
35[美]Peter H. Rossi等著,邱泽奇等译.项目评估:方法与技术.北京:华夏出版社,2002,pp185
36国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp31
37国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp56
38[美]Earl Babbie著,邱泽奇译.社会研究方法基础.北京:华夏出版社,2002,pp109
39 Qiu Junping, Chen Jingquan. An analysis of backlink counts and Web impact factors for Chinese university Websites, Proceedings of the 9th ISSI, Dalian University of Technology Press, 2003, pp235-245
40 [美]Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系,周萍等译,武夷山审校,北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004,pp217
41吴彤.对SCI不能简单说“Yes”或“No”.科技日报,2001年8月17日,第五版
42吴述尧.同行评议的对比研究.中国科学基金,1993(2),pp133
43王凭慧.科技项目评价方法.北京:科学出版社,2003:pp79
44 Mary Henkel. The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of The UK. Higher Education, 1999(38): pp.108
45 Alfred K. Maun. For better or for worse. New York: Columbis University Press, 2000:160-166,转引自王丹红.对SCI在科学评价体系中作用的思考.中国科技期刊研究,2001(4),pp293
46王丹红.对SCI在科学评价体系中作用的思考.中国科技期刊研究,2001(4),pp293
47刘文达等.关于基础研究同行评议的约束机制构建问题.科技管理研究,1999(6),pp13
48同行评议.国家自然科学基金委员会政策局译(内部资料),1992年,pp17,转引自蒋国华等.同行评议之路:科学计量学指标的应用.见《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp39
49吴述尧.同行评议方法论.北京:科学出版社,1996,转引自李延瑾.科技项目立项评审的同行评议方法研究.武汉理工大学硕士论文,2001年12月,pp1
50见《国家自然科学基金项目管理规定(试行)》第十六条,不过这个定义严格来说只是一个说明,因为它在以“同行评议”来解释“同行评议”。
51 Mary Henkel. The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of The UK. Higher Education, 1999(38): pp.108
52数据来源:NSF. Fiscal Year 2002 Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/ mrreport_2002 _final.doc, 2003年5月
53王晓斌,周志强.航空基础科学基金同行评议工作的现状及改进.航空科学技术,1998(3)
54参见《国家自然科学基金面上项目管理办法》(2002年12月13日发布)第二章第十条
55王平等.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现.科技管理研究,1997(4)
56李明德,陈奎宁.美国的科研资助和合同制.哈尔滨:黑龙江科学技术出版社,1989,转引自王平等.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现.科技管理研究,1997(4),pp40
57参见科技部《科学技术评价暂行办法(征求意见稿)》(2003年8月5日发布)第二十六条
58参见科技部《国家高技术研究发展计划课题预算评估规范(试行)》第三部分第二条第二款
59国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年,pp3
60参见《国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)课题评审程序规范(试行)》第三十三条和《国家科研计划课题评估评审暂行办法》第十条
61 Shahpar Modarresi, Dianna L. Newman, Mitchel Y. Abolafia: Academic evaluators versus practitioners-alternative experiences of professionalism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24 (2001) pp2
62参见科技部《.国家重点实验室评估规则》(2002年10月发布)附件说明
63 NSF. Fiscal Year 2002 Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, pp14,见http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/ mrreport_2002 _final.doc,
64 NIH. Review Criteria For and Rating of Unsolicited Research Grant and Other Applications, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not97-010.html
65国家自然科学基金委员会的项目评审和国家863高科技计划项目评审中均采用了这一措施,参见《国家自然科学基金项目评审办法》和《国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)课题评审程序规范(试行)》第三十三条
66 NSF与NIH都将评审的信息反馈给项目申请者。NSF主动将匿名的评审意见摘要和评审名次(根据评分高低)寄送给申请人。这两个机构认为,这种做法有助于项目申请者根据评审意见完善其项目申请。NSF和NIH明文规定申请者可以对评议结果提出异议和并提出复评要求。参见:郭碧坚,韩宇.美英等国科学基金组织改进同行评议的方法.科研管理,1996(1),pp58
67吴善超.从美国国家科学基金会看美国政府科技管理.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),第46期(总第269期)
68 NSF. Grant Proposal Guide. http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf042
69参见《国家自然科学基金面上项目管理办法》(2002年12月13日发布)第三章第二十条
70王崇德.社会科学研究方法要论.上海:学林出版社,1990,pp52
71卢泰宏.信息分析.广州:中山大学出版社,1998,pp188
72参见:卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999,pp248-295
73查先进.信息分析与预测.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000,pp147
74资料来源:武书连等.中国大学研究与发展评价(节录).科学学与科学技术管理,1997(7),pp49-72
76数据来源:卢泰宏.信息分析.广州:中山大学出版社,1998,pp215
77 [美]Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系,周萍等译,武夷山审校,北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004,pp170
78邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp1
79 Braun, T., Maezelka, W., and Schubert, H.: World Science in the Eighties: National Performances in Publication Output and Citation Impact, 1985-1989 Versus 1980-1984 in Life Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics, Scientometrics, 1994, 31(1), pp3-30
80同②,pp13
81 Boudourides, Moses A.; Sigrist, Beatrice & Alevizos, Philippos D. (1999). Webometrics and the Self-Organization of the European Information Society, http://hyperion.math.upatras.gr/webometrics
82国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp35
83 V. K. Gupta, N. B. Pangannaya. Carbon nanotubes: bibliometric analysis of patents, World Patent Information, 2000, 22, pp185
84 [美] Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系,周萍等译,武夷山审校,北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004,pp158
85资料来源:同上
86 Braun, T., Gianzel, W., and Grupp, H.: The Scientometric Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Area, 1989-1993, in the Life Sciences, Scientometrics, 1995, 34(2), pp207-237
87邱均平.信息计量学第七讲文献信息分布的集中与离散规律——布齐洛分布系及理论.情报理论与实践,2001(1),pp77
88邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp136
89数据来源:庞景安.科学计量研究方法论.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1999,pp172
90罗式胜.文献计量学引论.北京:书目文献出版社,1986,pp92
91 Grane, D.: Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972
92 Lotka, A.J.: The frequency distribution of Scientific Productivity, Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 1926, 16 (12),转引自:邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp179
93参见:邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp185;又见:王崇德.文献计量学引论.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1997,pp158
94 Price, D.J. de Solla, 1963. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York.见van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 613
95 Weinstock, M.: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 1971.见邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp291
96邱均平.信息计量学(九)第九讲:文献信息引证规律和引文分析法.情报理论与实践,2001(3),pp236
97 van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 614
98 Garfield, E.: The Impact Factor, http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/journalcitationreports/7.html
99罗式胜.学术部门影响因子的概念及其应用.载《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp129
100 Garfield, E. The 1991 Nobel-prize Winners Were All Citation Superstars. Current Content, 1992, 5(2), pp3-9
101邱均平.信息计量学(一)第一讲信息计量学的兴起和发展.情报理论与实践,2000(1),pp78
102马费成等.科学信息离散分布规律的研究.情报学报,1999(2),pp. 79-84
103 McKiernan, G. CitedSites(sm): Citation Indexing of Web resources[Z]. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/Cited.htm
104 Ingwersen, Peter,‘The calculation of Web Impact Factors’[J], Journal of Documentation, 1998, 54(2), pp236-243
105邱均平.陈敬全,中国大学网站链接分析及网络影响因子探讨,中国软科学,2004(1),pp151-155
106 Tomas C. Almind. and Peter Ingwersen. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to "Webometrics", Journal of Documentation, vol. 53, no 4, 1997, pp. 404-426
107网址为:http://www.cindoc. csic.es/cybermetrics
①Dahal, T. M.: Cybermetrics: The use and implications for Scientometrics and Bibliometrics; A study for Developing Science & Technology Information System in Nepal. IIIrd National Conference on Science & Technology March 8-11, 1999. Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology. http://www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/ronast/cyber.html
②邱均平,陈敬全.网络信息计量学及其应用研究.情报理论与实践,2001(3),pp161-163
③Katz, J., and Hick, D.: A Systemic View of British Science, Scientometrics, 1996, 35(1), pp133-154
④刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择.武汉大学博士论文,2002年4月,pp65
⑤van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 614
①国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.我国基础研究绩效评估研究现状.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp8
②Rinia, E.J., et al., 1998. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy 27, 95–107.
③同②,同样的结论可参见Porter, A.L., Rossini, F. Peer-review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Science, Technology, and Human Values 1985(10), pp33–38.
④梁立明等.再谈高校科研绩效评估的自报指标和源生指标.科技管理,1999(3),pp13-15
①龚旭.美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估及其启示(之二)——美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),2003年第29期(总第212期)
②韩宇,赵学文,赵黎明.从国家创新系统视角看国家自然科学基金的发展战略.中国软科学,2002(3),pp84
③张文天.综述:中国科技界流行的瘟疫“浮躁”(下),科技日报,2001年08月14日
④同②
①数据来源:朱献有,金碧辉等主编.中国科学计量指标:论文与引文索引(2002年卷),北京:中国科学院文献情报中心、中国学术期刊(光盘版)电子杂志社,2002,pp8
①参见:梁立明等.高等院校科研绩效评估的自报指标和源生指标.载《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp214
①王莲芬,许树柏.层次分析法引论,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990,pp2
①查先进.信息分析与预测.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000,pp183
①郭文明,相景丽,肖凯生.群组AHP权重系数的确定.华北工学院学报,2000 (2),pp110-113
①苏为华.多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究.厦门大学博士学位论文,2000年9月,pp6
①资料来源:赵瑜,王战军.量化技术在一级学科选优评估中的应用.载《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp222
①王凭慧.科技项目评价方法.北京:科学出版社,2003,pp45
①郑日昌.心理测量.长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988,转引自:卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999,pp78
①资料来源:卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999,pp185
①国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp54
②同①
③国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp54
①孙振球,田凤调.适用综合评价方法.北京:中国科学技术出版社,1994,pp74-113
①胡永宏.对TOPSIS法用于综合评价的改进.数学的实践与认识,2002(7),pp572
1[美]Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系.周萍等译,武夷山审校.北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004
2李德顺.价值论:一种主体性的研究.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1986
3吴岱明.科学研究方法学.长沙:湖南人民出版社,1987
4卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999
5侯定丕.王战军.非线性评估的理论探索与应用.合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2000
6卢泰宏.信息分析.广州:中山大学出版社,1998
7查先进.信息分析与预测.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000
8王崇德.社会科学研究方法要论.上海:学林出版社,1990
9[美]Earl Babbie.社会研究方法基础.邱泽奇译.北京:华夏出版社,2002
10[美]Peter H. Rossi等.项目评估:方法与技术.邱泽奇译.北京:华夏出版社,2002
11邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988
12 [比]Leo Egghe,[比]Ronald Rousseau.情报计量学引论.田苍林,葛赵青译.科学技术文献出版社,1992
13庞景安.科学计量研究方法论.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1999
14王崇德.文献计量学引论.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1997
15罗式胜.文献计量学引论.北京:书目文献出版社,1986
16王凭慧.科技项目评价方法.北京:科学出版社,2003
17许树柏.层次分析法原理.天津:天津大学出版杜.1988
18王莲芬,许树柏.层次分析法引论,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990
19邓祖新. SAS系统和数据分析.北京:电子工业出版社,2002
20范文正,江华.统计学基础教程.山西经济出版社.2002
21薛薇.统计分析与SPSS应用.中国人民大学出版社出版,2001
22谭跃进.定量分析方法.中国人民大学出版社,2002
23邱东.多指标综合评价方法的系统分析,中国统计出版社,1991
24刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择.武汉大学博士学位论文,2002年4月
25嵇丽.美国《科学引文索引》与科学评价研究.武汉大学硕士学位论文,2003年4月
26宋恩梅.教育信息管理与大学评价问题研究.武汉大学硕士学位论文,2003年4月
27李延瑾.科技项目立项评审的同行评议方法研究.武汉理工大学硕士论文,2001年12月
28苏为华.多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究.厦门大学博士学位论文,2000年9月
29联合国开发计划署评估办公室编.面向结果的监督与评估.国家科技评估中心译.北京:科学出版社,1999
30国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年
31国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(内部资料),2000-2001
32 NSF. Fiscal Year 2002 Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/mrreport_2002 _final.doc, 2003年5月
33王凭慧.科学研究项目评估方法综述.科研管理,1999(3)
34刘作仪,陈晓田.科学研究评价的性质、作用、方法及程序.科研管理,2002(2),pp33-40
35张彦.论科学与技术在社会学上的三个主要区别.南京社会科学,1998(8)
36龚旭.美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估及其启示(之二)——美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),2003年第29期(总第212期)
37吴述尧.同行评议的对比研究.中国科学基金,1993(2),pp133-137
38吴述尧.再论同行评议的功能.中国科学基金,1998(3),pp215-219
39龚旭.SCI、科研评价与资源优化配置.科技导报,2002(2),pp36-39
40刘文达等.关于基础研究同行评议的约束机制构建问题.科技管理研究,1999(6),pp13-18
41蒋国华等.同行评议之路:科学计量学指标的应用.见《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp38-49
42古继宝,梁斌.同行评议方式的比较.科学学研究,1997(2),pp90-95
43郭碧坚,韩宇.美英等国科学基金组织改进同行评议的方法.科研管理,1996(1)pp58-61
44王辉,范元炳.不断探索,进一步搞好同行评议工作.地球科学进展,1998(1)pp85-89
45韩宇,赵学文,赵黎明.从国家创新系统视角看国家自然科学基金的发展战略.中国软科学,2002(3),pp80-84
46马强,陈建新.同行评议方法在科学基金项目管理绩效评估中的应用.科技管理研究,2001(4),pp37-41
47吴善超.从美国国家科学基金会看美国政府科技管理.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),第46期(总第269期)
48武书连等.中国大学研究与发展评价(节录).科学学与科学技术管理,1997(7),pp49-72
49邱均平.我国大学评价的主要问题分析,图书馆论坛,2003(6),pp56-61
50邱均平,张蕊.我国大学评价的现状、问题与对策.科学进步与对策,2004(2),pp95-98
51邱均平等.科学发展优先领域的选择方法.科学进步与对策,1998(1),pp54-55
52邱均平,陈敬全.网络信息计量学及其应用研究.情报理论与实践,2001(3):pp161-163
53邱均平,陈敬全.中国大学网站链接分析及网络影响因子探讨,中国软科学,2004(1),pp151-155
54邱均平.我国情报学定量化研究的论文分布规律及其核心期刊测定.图书情报知识,1997(3),pp17-21
55邱均平.信息计量学(一)第一讲信息计量学的兴起和发展.情报理论与实践,2000(1),pp75-80
56邱均平.信息计量学(四)第四讲文献信息离散分布规律——布拉德福定律.情报理论与实践,2000(4),pp 315-320
57邱均平.信息计量学(六)第六讲文献信息作者分布规律——洛特卡定律.情报理论与实践,2000(6),pp 475-480
58邱均平.信息计量学(七)第七讲文献信息分布的集中与离散规律——布齐洛分布系及理论.情报理论与实践,2001(1),pp77
59邱均平.信息计量学(八)第八讲文献信息统计分析方法及应用.情报理论与实践,2001(2),pp156-159
60邱均平.信息计量学(九)第九讲:文献信息引证规律和引文分析法.情报理论与实践,2001(3),pp236-240
61邱均平.信息计量学(十一)第十一讲信息计量学在图书情报领域中的应用——以核心期刊研究和测定为例,情报理论与实践,2000(5),pp396-400
62马费成等.科学信息离散分布规律的研究.情报学报,1999(2),pp. 79-84
63马强,陈建新.科学计量学方法在科学基金项目管理中的应用.科学学研究,2001(3),pp78-83
64梁立明.高等院校科研绩效评估的数据库选择.科研管理,1999(3),pp12-17
65梁立明等.再谈高校科研绩效评估的自报指标和源生指标.科技管理,1999(3),pp13-15
66魏和清.试论AHP法在科技进步统计监测中的应用.统计与决策,2000(11),pp23-24
67陈伯成,王友平.对层次分析法的认识.管理工程学报,1997(3),pp155-161
68王其冬,武佩珍,程建刚,冯恩民.层次分析法在国家自然科学基金项目评审中的应用.系统工程理论与实践,2001(7),pp119-124
69 [日]张崎,西村昂.提高层次分析法评价精度的几种方法.系统工程理论与实践,2001(11),pp29-35,102
70赵玮,李桂莲.AHP的扩展及应用.数学的实践与认识,1997(2),pp165-180
71李宴喜,陶志.层次分析法中判断矩阵的群组综合构造方法.沈阳师范学院学报(自然科学版),2002 (2),pp86-90
72郭文明,相景丽,肖凯生.群组AHP权重系数的确定.华北工学院学报,2000 (2),pp110-113
73王应明,徐南荣.优化理论在层次分析法中的应用.系统工程理论与实践,1991(11),pp24-29
74韩静轩,马力,苗丽安.科研机构科技活动绩效的模糊综合评价.科技进步与对策,1999(6),pp81-82
75栾庆伟,郝国桢.应用与开发研究所科研能力综合评价方法.科学学研究,1993(4),pp73-79
76熊德国,鲜学福.模糊综合评价方法的改进.重庆大学学报,2003(6),pp93-95
77田成诗.运用秩和比法评价上市公司经营业绩.统计与决策,2003 (1),pp56-57
78王华统等.影响科技成果转化的主成分分析.运筹与管理,2003(6),pp123-126
79张灵莹.多层次统计指标评价体系的评价方法.深圳大学学报(理工版),1999(1),pp39-44
80郭亚军,潘德惠.多属性综合评价的一种新方法.系统工程理论与实践,1994(9),pp58-62
81姚永翘.科技文献定量评价方法.科技进步与对策,2001(5),pp120-121
82李浩志.综合评价方法论研究.管理工程学报,1990(4),pp33-40
83高洪深.效用理论在高校评估中的应用.系统工程理论与实践,1990(1),pp51-56
84陈述云,张崇甫.多指标综合评价方法及其优化选择研究.数理统计与管理,1994(3),pp18-21
85胡永宏.对TOPSIS法用于综合评价的改进.数学的实践与认识,2002 (4),pp572-575
86 Mary Henkel. The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of The UK. Higher Education, 1999(38), pp.105-122
87 Christina Segerholm. Researching Evaluation in National (State) Politics and Administration: A Critical Approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 2003, 24 (3), pp353-372.
88 Henry, G. T.. How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges forevaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 2001, 22, 419-429.
89 Mahesh Patel. A meta-evaluation, or quality assessment of the evaluations in this issue based on the African Evaluation Guidelines: 2002. Evaluation and Program Planning 2002(25) , pp329-332
90 Luukkonen, Terttu. The impacts of research field evaluations on research practice. Research Policy, 1995(3), pp. 349-365
91 Michael J Larhin.Pressure to publish stifles young talent, Nature, 1999, 397, pp467
92 Luke Georghiou a, David Roessner. Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, 2000(29), pp657-678
93 Georghiou, L. Issues in the evaluation of innovation and technology policy. Evaluation, 1998,4 (1) , pp37-51
94 Linda Butler. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy 2003(32), pp143-155
95 Takayuki Hayashi. Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university–industry–government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes. Research Policy 2003(32), pp1421-1442
96 R.J. Ormerod. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation? Omega, Int J Mgmt Sci 2000(28), pp241-245
97 Jones MJ, Brinn T, Pendlebury M. Journal evaluation methodologies: a balanced response. Omega, Int J Mgmt Sci 1996(24), pp607-612.
98 Doyle Gupta UG. Using citation analysis to explore the intellectual base, knowledge dissemination, and research, impact of Interfaces Interfaces, 1997, 27(2), pp85-101.
99 Katz, J., and Hick, D.: A Systemic View of British Science, Scientometrics, 1996, 35(1), pp133-154
100 Garfield, E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science, 1972, 178, pp471-479
101 Garfield, E.: The Impact Factor, http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/journalcitationreports/7.html
102 Garfield, E. The 1991 Nobel-prize Winners Were All Citation Superstars. Current Content, 1992, 5(2), pp3-9
103 van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 614
104 Rinia, E.J., et al. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy 1998, 27, 95-107.
105 Ingwersen, Peter. The calculation of Web Impact Factors, Journal of Documentation, 1998, 54(2), pp236-243
106 Dahal, T. M.: Cybermetrics: The use and implications for Scientometrics and Bibliometrics; A study for Developing Science & Technology Information System in Nepal. IIIrd National Conference on Science & Technology March 8-11, 1999. Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology. http://www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/ronast/cyber.html
107 Tomas C. Almind. and Peter Ingwersen. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to "Webometrics", Journal of Documentation, 1997, 4, pp. 404-426
108 Adler, Marina A. The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: the case of the coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2002, 3, pp. 203-213
109 Cooksey, L.J.; Gill, P.; Kelly, P.A. The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning 2001, pp. 119-128
110 Carotenuto, Gianfranco; Lapegna, Mariagloria; Zollo, Giuseppe; Di Donato, Alberto; Nicolais, Luigi. Evaluating research performance: the strategy of the University of Naples Federico II (Italy). Higher Education Policy, 2001(1), pp75-90
111 Noyons, E.C.M.; Luwel, M.; Moed, H.F. Assessment of Flemish R & D in the field of information technology A bibliometric evaluation based on publication and patent data, combined with OECD research input statistics, Research Policy, 1998(3), pp285-300
112 Qiu Junping, Chen Jingquan. An analysis of backlink counts and Web impact factors for Chinese university Websites, Proceedings of the 9th ISSI, Dalian University of Technology Press, 2003, pp235-245
113 Shahpar Modarresi, Dianna L. Newman, Mitchel Y. Abolafia: Academic evaluators versus practitioners-alternative experiences of professionalism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2001(24),pp2
114 Braun, T., Gianzel, W., and Grupp, H.: The Scientometric Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Area, 1989-1993, in the Life Sciences, Scientometrics, 1995, 34(2), pp207-237
115 Jack P.C. Kleijnen, Willem Van Groenendaal. Measuring the quality of publications: new methodology and case study. Information Processing and Management 2000(365), pp551-570
116 Gianfranco Carotenutoa, Mariagloria Lapegnab, Giuseppe Zolloc, Alberto Di Donatod, Luigi Nicolaisa. Evaluating research performance: the strategy of the University of Naples Federico II (Italy). Higher Education Policy, 2001(14), pp75-90
117Balthasar, A., Rieder, S. Learning from evaluations: effects of evaluation of the Swiss Energy 2000 Programme. Evaluation, 2000, 6 (3), pp245-260.
118 Loet leydesstorff. et al. The evaluation of national performance in selected priority areas using scientometric methods. Research Policy, 1996(25), pp431-450
119 Joseph Sarkis. Quantitative models for performance measurement systems—alternate considerations. Int. J. Production Economics 2003(86), pp81-90
120 Guisseppi A. Forgionnea; ., Rajiv Kohlib, Darniet Jenningsa. An AHP analysis ofquality in AI and DSS journals, Omega 2002 (30), pp171-183
121 Chian-Son Yu. AGP-A HP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems. Computers & Operations Research, 2002(29), pp1969-2001
122 Rosnah Mohd, Yusu. Kok PohYee, M.S.J. Hashmi. A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2001(17), pp421-427
②刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择.武汉大学博士论文,2002年4月,pp1
③国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp27
①国家科技评估中心.评估概览:日本,http://211.94.158.79:100/news/displaynews/displaymod/mod13.asp?id=305
②国家科技评估中心.国际评估概述,http://211.94.158.79:100/news/displaynews/displaymod/mod13.asp?id=298
①Rinia, E.J., et al. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy, 1998, 27, pp95–107.
②其网址为http://www..cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics
①国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp45
②同上
①同国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp45
①这一划分参见李晓轩,石兵.中国科学院研究所评价浅议.中国科学院院刊,2003(2),pp132
②国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp26
③同②
④同②
①转引自:吴岱明.科学研究方法学.长沙:湖南人民出版社,1987,pp8
②转引自:罗长坤,张东旭,黄建军.医学科研选题及其创新.中华医学科研管理杂志,2001(3),pp34
③王凭慧.科学研究项目评估方法综述.科研管理,1999(3)
④李德顺.价值论.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1986,pp108
①参见:侯定丕.王战军.非线性评估的理论探索与应用.合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2000,pp2
②J.科尔,S.科尔:《科学界的社会分层》,华夏出版社1989年版,第17页,转引自张彦.论科学与技术在社会学上的三个主要区别.南京社会科学,1998(8),pp29～34
③刘作义,陈晓田.科学研究评价的性质、作用、方法及程序.科研管理,2002(2),pp34
①侯定丕.王战军.非线性评估的理论探索与应用.合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2000,pp91
②同上
①参见国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)课题评审程序规范(试行)第四条
②Michael J Larhin.Pressure to publish stifles young talent, Nature, 1999,397,pp467
26这个分类参见:国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年,pp10
27联合国开发计划署评估办公室编.面向结果的监督与评估.国家科技评估中心译.北京:科学出版社,1999,pp22
28参见《科学技术评价暂行办法(征求意见稿)》(2003年8月5日公布)第三十一条
29国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年,pp32
32龚旭.美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估及其启示(之三)——对我们工作的几点启示,情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),2003年第30期(总第213期)
33[美]Earl Babbie著,邱泽奇译.社会研究方法基础.北京:华夏出版社,2002,pp104
34这些方法的具体内容参见①,pp105-107
35[美]Peter H. Rossi等著,邱泽奇等译.项目评估:方法与技术.北京:华夏出版社,2002,pp185
36国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp31
37国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp56
38[美]Earl Babbie著,邱泽奇译.社会研究方法基础.北京:华夏出版社,2002,pp109
39 Qiu Junping, Chen Jingquan. An analysis of backlink counts and Web impact factors for Chinese university Websites, Proceedings of the 9th ISSI, Dalian University of Technology Press, 2003, pp235-245
40 [美]Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系,周萍等译,武夷山审校,北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004,pp217
41吴彤.对SCI不能简单说“Yes”或“No”.科技日报,2001年8月17日,第五版
42吴述尧.同行评议的对比研究.中国科学基金,1993(2),pp133
43王凭慧.科技项目评价方法.北京:科学出版社,2003:pp79
44 Mary Henkel. The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of The UK. Higher Education, 1999(38): pp.108
45 Alfred K. Maun. For better or for worse. New York: Columbis University Press, 2000:160-166,转引自王丹红.对SCI在科学评价体系中作用的思考.中国科技期刊研究,2001(4),pp293
46王丹红.对SCI在科学评价体系中作用的思考.中国科技期刊研究,2001(4),pp293
47刘文达等.关于基础研究同行评议的约束机制构建问题.科技管理研究,1999(6),pp13
48同行评议.国家自然科学基金委员会政策局译(内部资料),1992年,pp17,转引自蒋国华等.同行评议之路:科学计量学指标的应用.见《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp39
49吴述尧.同行评议方法论.北京:科学出版社,1996,转引自李延瑾.科技项目立项评审的同行评议方法研究.武汉理工大学硕士论文,2001年12月,pp1
50见《国家自然科学基金项目管理规定(试行)》第十六条,不过这个定义严格来说只是一个说明,因为它在以“同行评议”来解释“同行评议”。
51 Mary Henkel. The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of The UK. Higher Education, 1999(38): pp.108
52数据来源:NSF. Fiscal Year 2002 Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/ mrreport_2002 _final.doc, 2003年5月
53王晓斌,周志强.航空基础科学基金同行评议工作的现状及改进.航空科学技术,1998(3)
54参见《国家自然科学基金面上项目管理办法》(2002年12月13日发布)第二章第十条
55王平等.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现.科技管理研究,1997(4)
56李明德,陈奎宁.美国的科研资助和合同制.哈尔滨:黑龙江科学技术出版社,1989,转引自王平等.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现.科技管理研究,1997(4),pp40
57参见科技部《科学技术评价暂行办法(征求意见稿)》(2003年8月5日发布)第二十六条
58参见科技部《国家高技术研究发展计划课题预算评估规范(试行)》第三部分第二条第二款
59国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年,pp3
60参见《国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)课题评审程序规范(试行)》第三十三条和《国家科研计划课题评估评审暂行办法》第十条
61 Shahpar Modarresi, Dianna L. Newman, Mitchel Y. Abolafia: Academic evaluators versus practitioners-alternative experiences of professionalism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24 (2001) pp2
62参见科技部《.国家重点实验室评估规则》(2002年10月发布)附件说明
63 NSF. Fiscal Year 2002 Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, pp14,见http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/ mrreport_2002 _final.doc,
64 NIH. Review Criteria For and Rating of Unsolicited Research Grant and Other Applications, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not97-010.html
65国家自然科学基金委员会的项目评审和国家863高科技计划项目评审中均采用了这一措施,参见《国家自然科学基金项目评审办法》和《国家高技术研究发展计划(863计划)课题评审程序规范(试行)》第三十三条
66 NSF与NIH都将评审的信息反馈给项目申请者。NSF主动将匿名的评审意见摘要和评审名次(根据评分高低)寄送给申请人。这两个机构认为,这种做法有助于项目申请者根据评审意见完善其项目申请。NSF和NIH明文规定申请者可以对评议结果提出异议和并提出复评要求。参见:郭碧坚,韩宇.美英等国科学基金组织改进同行评议的方法.科研管理,1996(1),pp58
67吴善超.从美国国家科学基金会看美国政府科技管理.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),第46期(总第269期)
68 NSF. Grant Proposal Guide. http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?nsf042
69参见《国家自然科学基金面上项目管理办法》(2002年12月13日发布)第三章第二十条
70王崇德.社会科学研究方法要论.上海:学林出版社,1990,pp52
71卢泰宏.信息分析.广州:中山大学出版社,1998,pp188
72参见:卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999,pp248-295
73查先进.信息分析与预测.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000,pp147
74资料来源:武书连等.中国大学研究与发展评价(节录).科学学与科学技术管理,1997(7),pp49-72
76数据来源:卢泰宏.信息分析.广州:中山大学出版社,1998,pp215
77 [美]Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系,周萍等译,武夷山审校,北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004,pp170
78邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp1
79 Braun, T., Maezelka, W., and Schubert, H.: World Science in the Eighties: National Performances in Publication Output and Citation Impact, 1985-1989 Versus 1980-1984 in Life Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics, Scientometrics, 1994, 31(1), pp3-30
80同②,pp13
81 Boudourides, Moses A.; Sigrist, Beatrice & Alevizos, Philippos D. (1999). Webometrics and the Self-Organization of the European Information Society, http://hyperion.math.upatras.gr/webometrics
82国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国外科学研究绩效评估概述.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp35
83 V. K. Gupta, N. B. Pangannaya. Carbon nanotubes: bibliometric analysis of patents, World Patent Information, 2000, 22, pp185
84 [美] Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系,周萍等译,武夷山审校,北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004,pp158
85资料来源:同上
86 Braun, T., Gianzel, W., and Grupp, H.: The Scientometric Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Area, 1989-1993, in the Life Sciences, Scientometrics, 1995, 34(2), pp207-237
87邱均平.信息计量学第七讲文献信息分布的集中与离散规律——布齐洛分布系及理论.情报理论与实践,2001(1),pp77
88邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp136
89数据来源:庞景安.科学计量研究方法论.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1999,pp172
90罗式胜.文献计量学引论.北京:书目文献出版社,1986,pp92
91 Grane, D.: Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972
92 Lotka, A.J.: The frequency distribution of Scientific Productivity, Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 1926, 16 (12),转引自:邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp179
93参见:邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp185;又见:王崇德.文献计量学引论.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1997,pp158
94 Price, D.J. de Solla, 1963. Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York.见van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 613
95 Weinstock, M.: Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 1971.见邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988,pp291
96邱均平.信息计量学(九)第九讲:文献信息引证规律和引文分析法.情报理论与实践,2001(3),pp236
97 van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 614
98 Garfield, E.: The Impact Factor, http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/journalcitationreports/7.html
99罗式胜.学术部门影响因子的概念及其应用.载《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp129
100 Garfield, E. The 1991 Nobel-prize Winners Were All Citation Superstars. Current Content, 1992, 5(2), pp3-9
101邱均平.信息计量学(一)第一讲信息计量学的兴起和发展.情报理论与实践,2000(1),pp78
102马费成等.科学信息离散分布规律的研究.情报学报,1999(2),pp. 79-84
103 McKiernan, G. CitedSites(sm): Citation Indexing of Web resources[Z]. http://www.public.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/Cited.htm
104 Ingwersen, Peter,‘The calculation of Web Impact Factors’[J], Journal of Documentation, 1998, 54(2), pp236-243
105邱均平.陈敬全,中国大学网站链接分析及网络影响因子探讨,中国软科学,2004(1),pp151-155
106 Tomas C. Almind. and Peter Ingwersen. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to "Webometrics", Journal of Documentation, vol. 53, no 4, 1997, pp. 404-426
107网址为:http://www.cindoc. csic.es/cybermetrics
①Dahal, T. M.: Cybermetrics: The use and implications for Scientometrics and Bibliometrics; A study for Developing Science & Technology Information System in Nepal. IIIrd National Conference on Science & Technology March 8-11, 1999. Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology. http://www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/ronast/cyber.html
②邱均平,陈敬全.网络信息计量学及其应用研究.情报理论与实践,2001(3),pp161-163
③Katz, J., and Hick, D.: A Systemic View of British Science, Scientometrics, 1996, 35(1), pp133-154
④刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择.武汉大学博士论文,2002年4月,pp65
⑤van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 614
①国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.我国基础研究绩效评估研究现状.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(廿四),2001年11月,pp8
②Rinia, E.J., et al., 1998. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy 27, 95–107.
③同②,同样的结论可参见Porter, A.L., Rossini, F. Peer-review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Science, Technology, and Human Values 1985(10), pp33–38.
④梁立明等.再谈高校科研绩效评估的自报指标和源生指标.科技管理,1999(3),pp13-15
①龚旭.美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估及其启示(之二)——美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),2003年第29期(总第212期)
②韩宇,赵学文,赵黎明.从国家创新系统视角看国家自然科学基金的发展战略.中国软科学,2002(3),pp84
③张文天.综述:中国科技界流行的瘟疫“浮躁”(下),科技日报,2001年08月14日
④同②
①数据来源:朱献有,金碧辉等主编.中国科学计量指标:论文与引文索引(2002年卷),北京:中国科学院文献情报中心、中国学术期刊(光盘版)电子杂志社,2002,pp8
①参见:梁立明等.高等院校科研绩效评估的自报指标和源生指标.载《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp214
①王莲芬,许树柏.层次分析法引论,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990,pp2
①查先进.信息分析与预测.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000,pp183
①郭文明,相景丽,肖凯生.群组AHP权重系数的确定.华北工学院学报,2000 (2),pp110-113
①苏为华.多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究.厦门大学博士学位论文,2000年9月,pp6
①资料来源:赵瑜,王战军.量化技术在一级学科选优评估中的应用.载《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp222
①王凭慧.科技项目评价方法.北京:科学出版社,2003,pp45
①郑日昌.心理测量.长沙:湖南教育出版社,1988,转引自:卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999,pp78
①资料来源:卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999,pp185
①国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp54
②同①
③国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001,pp54
①孙振球,田凤调.适用综合评价方法.北京:中国科学技术出版社,1994,pp74-113
①胡永宏.对TOPSIS法用于综合评价的改进.数学的实践与认识,2002(7),pp572
1[美]Eliezer Geisler.科学技术测度体系.周萍等译,武夷山审校.北京:科学技术文献出版社,2004
2李德顺.价值论:一种主体性的研究.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1986
3吴岱明.科学研究方法学.长沙:湖南人民出版社,1987
4卜卫,周海宏,刘晓红.社会科学成果价值评估.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999
5侯定丕.王战军.非线性评估的理论探索与应用.合肥:中国科学技术大学出版社,2000
6卢泰宏.信息分析.广州:中山大学出版社,1998
7查先进.信息分析与预测.武汉:武汉大学出版社,2000
8王崇德.社会科学研究方法要论.上海:学林出版社,1990
9[美]Earl Babbie.社会研究方法基础.邱泽奇译.北京:华夏出版社,2002
10[美]Peter H. Rossi等.项目评估:方法与技术.邱泽奇译.北京:华夏出版社,2002
11邱均平.文献计量学.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1988
12 [比]Leo Egghe,[比]Ronald Rousseau.情报计量学引论.田苍林,葛赵青译.科学技术文献出版社,1992
13庞景安.科学计量研究方法论.北京:科学技术文献出版社,1999
14王崇德.文献计量学引论.桂林:广西师范大学出版社,1997
15罗式胜.文献计量学引论.北京:书目文献出版社,1986
16王凭慧.科技项目评价方法.北京:科学出版社,2003
17许树柏.层次分析法原理.天津:天津大学出版杜.1988
18王莲芬,许树柏.层次分析法引论,北京:中国人民大学出版社,1990
19邓祖新. SAS系统和数据分析.北京:电子工业出版社,2002
20范文正,江华.统计学基础教程.山西经济出版社.2002
21薛薇.统计分析与SPSS应用.中国人民大学出版社出版,2001
22谭跃进.定量分析方法.中国人民大学出版社,2002
23邱东.多指标综合评价方法的系统分析,中国统计出版社,1991
24刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择.武汉大学博士学位论文,2002年4月
25嵇丽.美国《科学引文索引》与科学评价研究.武汉大学硕士学位论文,2003年4月
26宋恩梅.教育信息管理与大学评价问题研究.武汉大学硕士学位论文,2003年4月
27李延瑾.科技项目立项评审的同行评议方法研究.武汉理工大学硕士论文,2001年12月
28苏为华.多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究.厦门大学博士学位论文,2000年9月
29联合国开发计划署评估办公室编.面向结果的监督与评估.国家科技评估中心译.北京:科学出版社,1999
30国家科技评估中心.科技评估规范(第一版).北京:中国物价出版社.2001年
31国家自然科学基金委员会政策局.国家自然科学基金委员会政策研究系列参考资料(内部资料),2000-2001
32 NSF. Fiscal Year 2002 Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/merit_rprt/mrreport_2002 _final.doc, 2003年5月
33王凭慧.科学研究项目评估方法综述.科研管理,1999(3)
34刘作仪,陈晓田.科学研究评价的性质、作用、方法及程序.科研管理,2002(2),pp33-40
35张彦.论科学与技术在社会学上的三个主要区别.南京社会科学,1998(8)
36龚旭.美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估及其启示(之二)——美国国家科学基金会开展的绩效评估.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),2003年第29期(总第212期)
37吴述尧.同行评议的对比研究.中国科学基金,1993(2),pp133-137
38吴述尧.再论同行评议的功能.中国科学基金,1998(3),pp215-219
39龚旭.SCI、科研评价与资源优化配置.科技导报,2002(2),pp36-39
40刘文达等.关于基础研究同行评议的约束机制构建问题.科技管理研究,1999(6),pp13-18
41蒋国华等.同行评议之路:科学计量学指标的应用.见《科研评价与指标》,北京:红旗出版社,2000,pp38-49
42古继宝,梁斌.同行评议方式的比较.科学学研究,1997(2),pp90-95
43郭碧坚,韩宇.美英等国科学基金组织改进同行评议的方法.科研管理,1996(1)pp58-61
44王辉,范元炳.不断探索,进一步搞好同行评议工作.地球科学进展,1998(1)pp85-89
45韩宇,赵学文,赵黎明.从国家创新系统视角看国家自然科学基金的发展战略.中国软科学,2002(3),pp80-84
46马强,陈建新.同行评议方法在科学基金项目管理绩效评估中的应用.科技管理研究,2001(4),pp37-41
47吴善超.从美国国家科学基金会看美国政府科技管理.情况交流(国家自然科学基金委内刊),第46期(总第269期)
48武书连等.中国大学研究与发展评价(节录).科学学与科学技术管理,1997(7),pp49-72
49邱均平.我国大学评价的主要问题分析,图书馆论坛,2003(6),pp56-61
50邱均平,张蕊.我国大学评价的现状、问题与对策.科学进步与对策,2004(2),pp95-98
51邱均平等.科学发展优先领域的选择方法.科学进步与对策,1998(1),pp54-55
52邱均平,陈敬全.网络信息计量学及其应用研究.情报理论与实践,2001(3):pp161-163
53邱均平,陈敬全.中国大学网站链接分析及网络影响因子探讨,中国软科学,2004(1),pp151-155
54邱均平.我国情报学定量化研究的论文分布规律及其核心期刊测定.图书情报知识,1997(3),pp17-21
55邱均平.信息计量学(一)第一讲信息计量学的兴起和发展.情报理论与实践,2000(1),pp75-80
56邱均平.信息计量学(四)第四讲文献信息离散分布规律——布拉德福定律.情报理论与实践,2000(4),pp 315-320
57邱均平.信息计量学(六)第六讲文献信息作者分布规律——洛特卡定律.情报理论与实践,2000(6),pp 475-480
58邱均平.信息计量学(七)第七讲文献信息分布的集中与离散规律——布齐洛分布系及理论.情报理论与实践,2001(1),pp77
59邱均平.信息计量学(八)第八讲文献信息统计分析方法及应用.情报理论与实践,2001(2),pp156-159
60邱均平.信息计量学(九)第九讲:文献信息引证规律和引文分析法.情报理论与实践,2001(3),pp236-240
61邱均平.信息计量学(十一)第十一讲信息计量学在图书情报领域中的应用——以核心期刊研究和测定为例,情报理论与实践,2000(5),pp396-400
62马费成等.科学信息离散分布规律的研究.情报学报,1999(2),pp. 79-84
63马强,陈建新.科学计量学方法在科学基金项目管理中的应用.科学学研究,2001(3),pp78-83
64梁立明.高等院校科研绩效评估的数据库选择.科研管理,1999(3),pp12-17
65梁立明等.再谈高校科研绩效评估的自报指标和源生指标.科技管理,1999(3),pp13-15
66魏和清.试论AHP法在科技进步统计监测中的应用.统计与决策,2000(11),pp23-24
67陈伯成,王友平.对层次分析法的认识.管理工程学报,1997(3),pp155-161
68王其冬,武佩珍,程建刚,冯恩民.层次分析法在国家自然科学基金项目评审中的应用.系统工程理论与实践,2001(7),pp119-124
69 [日]张崎,西村昂.提高层次分析法评价精度的几种方法.系统工程理论与实践,2001(11),pp29-35,102
70赵玮,李桂莲.AHP的扩展及应用.数学的实践与认识,1997(2),pp165-180
71李宴喜,陶志.层次分析法中判断矩阵的群组综合构造方法.沈阳师范学院学报(自然科学版),2002 (2),pp86-90
72郭文明,相景丽,肖凯生.群组AHP权重系数的确定.华北工学院学报,2000 (2),pp110-113
73王应明,徐南荣.优化理论在层次分析法中的应用.系统工程理论与实践,1991(11),pp24-29
74韩静轩,马力,苗丽安.科研机构科技活动绩效的模糊综合评价.科技进步与对策,1999(6),pp81-82
75栾庆伟,郝国桢.应用与开发研究所科研能力综合评价方法.科学学研究,1993(4),pp73-79
76熊德国,鲜学福.模糊综合评价方法的改进.重庆大学学报,2003(6),pp93-95
77田成诗.运用秩和比法评价上市公司经营业绩.统计与决策,2003 (1),pp56-57
78王华统等.影响科技成果转化的主成分分析.运筹与管理,2003(6),pp123-126
79张灵莹.多层次统计指标评价体系的评价方法.深圳大学学报(理工版),1999(1),pp39-44
80郭亚军,潘德惠.多属性综合评价的一种新方法.系统工程理论与实践,1994(9),pp58-62
81姚永翘.科技文献定量评价方法.科技进步与对策,2001(5),pp120-121
82李浩志.综合评价方法论研究.管理工程学报,1990(4),pp33-40
83高洪深.效用理论在高校评估中的应用.系统工程理论与实践,1990(1),pp51-56
84陈述云,张崇甫.多指标综合评价方法及其优化选择研究.数理统计与管理,1994(3),pp18-21
85胡永宏.对TOPSIS法用于综合评价的改进.数学的实践与认识,2002 (4),pp572-575
86 Mary Henkel. The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of The UK. Higher Education, 1999(38), pp.105-122
87 Christina Segerholm. Researching Evaluation in National (State) Politics and Administration: A Critical Approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 2003, 24 (3), pp353-372.
88 Henry, G. T.. How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges forevaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 2001, 22, 419-429.
89 Mahesh Patel. A meta-evaluation, or quality assessment of the evaluations in this issue based on the African Evaluation Guidelines: 2002. Evaluation and Program Planning 2002(25) , pp329-332
90 Luukkonen, Terttu. The impacts of research field evaluations on research practice. Research Policy, 1995(3), pp. 349-365
91 Michael J Larhin.Pressure to publish stifles young talent, Nature, 1999, 397, pp467
92 Luke Georghiou a, David Roessner. Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, 2000(29), pp657-678
93 Georghiou, L. Issues in the evaluation of innovation and technology policy. Evaluation, 1998,4 (1) , pp37-51
94 Linda Butler. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy 2003(32), pp143-155
95 Takayuki Hayashi. Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university–industry–government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes. Research Policy 2003(32), pp1421-1442
96 R.J. Ormerod. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation? Omega, Int J Mgmt Sci 2000(28), pp241-245
97 Jones MJ, Brinn T, Pendlebury M. Journal evaluation methodologies: a balanced response. Omega, Int J Mgmt Sci 1996(24), pp607-612.
98 Doyle Gupta UG. Using citation analysis to explore the intellectual base, knowledge dissemination, and research, impact of Interfaces Interfaces, 1997, 27(2), pp85-101.
99 Katz, J., and Hick, D.: A Systemic View of British Science, Scientometrics, 1996, 35(1), pp133-154
100 Garfield, E. Citation Analysis as a Tool in Journal Evaluation. Science, 1972, 178, pp471-479
101 Garfield, E.: The Impact Factor, http://www.isinet.com/isi/hot/essays/journalcitationreports/7.html
102 Garfield, E. The 1991 Nobel-prize Winners Were All Citation Superstars. Current Content, 1992, 5(2), pp3-9
103 van Raan, A.F.J. and van Leeuwen, Th. N. , Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research, Research Policy, 2002, 31(4), pp. 614
104 Rinia, E.J., et al. Comparative analysis of a set of bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria. Evaluation of condensed matter physics in The Netherlands. Research Policy 1998, 27, 95-107.
105 Ingwersen, Peter. The calculation of Web Impact Factors, Journal of Documentation, 1998, 54(2), pp236-243
106 Dahal, T. M.: Cybermetrics: The use and implications for Scientometrics and Bibliometrics; A study for Developing Science & Technology Information System in Nepal. IIIrd National Conference on Science & Technology March 8-11, 1999. Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology. http://www.panasia.org.sg/nepalnet/ronast/cyber.html
107 Tomas C. Almind. and Peter Ingwersen. Informetric analyses on the World Wide Web: methodological approaches to "Webometrics", Journal of Documentation, 1997, 4, pp. 404-426
108 Adler, Marina A. The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: the case of the coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2002, 3, pp. 203-213
109 Cooksey, L.J.; Gill, P.; Kelly, P.A. The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning 2001, pp. 119-128
110 Carotenuto, Gianfranco; Lapegna, Mariagloria; Zollo, Giuseppe; Di Donato, Alberto; Nicolais, Luigi. Evaluating research performance: the strategy of the University of Naples Federico II (Italy). Higher Education Policy, 2001(1), pp75-90
111 Noyons, E.C.M.; Luwel, M.; Moed, H.F. Assessment of Flemish R & D in the field of information technology A bibliometric evaluation based on publication and patent data, combined with OECD research input statistics, Research Policy, 1998(3), pp285-300
112 Qiu Junping, Chen Jingquan. An analysis of backlink counts and Web impact factors for Chinese university Websites, Proceedings of the 9th ISSI, Dalian University of Technology Press, 2003, pp235-245
113 Shahpar Modarresi, Dianna L. Newman, Mitchel Y. Abolafia: Academic evaluators versus practitioners-alternative experiences of professionalism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2001(24),pp2
114 Braun, T., Gianzel, W., and Grupp, H.: The Scientometric Weight of 50 Nations in 27 Science Area, 1989-1993, in the Life Sciences, Scientometrics, 1995, 34(2), pp207-237
115 Jack P.C. Kleijnen, Willem Van Groenendaal. Measuring the quality of publications: new methodology and case study. Information Processing and Management 2000(365), pp551-570
116 Gianfranco Carotenutoa, Mariagloria Lapegnab, Giuseppe Zolloc, Alberto Di Donatod, Luigi Nicolaisa. Evaluating research performance: the strategy of the University of Naples Federico II (Italy). Higher Education Policy, 2001(14), pp75-90
117Balthasar, A., Rieder, S. Learning from evaluations: effects of evaluation of the Swiss Energy 2000 Programme. Evaluation, 2000, 6 (3), pp245-260.
118 Loet leydesstorff. et al. The evaluation of national performance in selected priority areas using scientometric methods. Research Policy, 1996(25), pp431-450
119 Joseph Sarkis. Quantitative models for performance measurement systems—alternate considerations. Int. J. Production Economics 2003(86), pp81-90
120 Guisseppi A. Forgionnea; ., Rajiv Kohlib, Darniet Jenningsa. An AHP analysis ofquality in AI and DSS journals, Omega 2002 (30), pp171-183
121 Chian-Son Yu. AGP-A HP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems. Computers & Operations Research, 2002(29), pp1969-2001
122 Rosnah Mohd, Yusu. Kok PohYee, M.S.J. Hashmi. A preliminary study on the potential use of the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to predict advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) implementation. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2001(17), pp421-427