Zhongguo cuzhong zazhi (May 2024)
某神经特色医疗机构2020—2023年申请神经系统领域国家自然科学基金项目同行评议意见分析及对策 Analysis and Countermeasures of Peer Review Opinions of a Neuro-Characteristic Medical Institution Applying for National Natural Science Foundation of China in the Field of Nervous System from 2020 to 2023
Abstract
摘要： 目的 了解首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院神经系统领域国家自然科学基金项目申请未获资助的原因并提出对策，为同行提供借鉴。 方法 采用内容分析法，对该医院2020—2023年申请国家自然科学基金神经系统领域未获资助的289项青年、面上项目的867人次同行评议意见进行归类整理分析。 结果 本文共分析了1219条未获资助原因，发现在未获资助的青年和面上项目中，存在问题提及率及比例排名前5位的依次为“研究方案不合理”（32.65%/85.12%）、“研究基础不足”（18.54%/54.33%）、“创新性不足”（15.67%/51.21%）、“立项依据不足”（8.37%/30.10%）、“科学及临床价值不足”（7.88%/28.72%），其中青年项目“创新性不足”（提及率：17.13% vs. 13.84%；比例：53.75% vs. 48.06%）、“细节问题”（提及率：6.50% vs. 3.87%；比例：23.13% vs. 15.50%）的提及率及比例略高于面上项目，“科学问题属性选择错误”的提及率（4.28% vs. 4.06%）、“关键科学问题凝练不足”的比例（24.38% vs. 23.26%）同样在青年项目中略高，但仅“细节问题”提及率在两类项目中的差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.322，P=0.038）。专家意见一致性分析显示，3位专家意见完全一致且排名前3位的反馈意见与上述结果中的前3位一致。 结论 该医院未中标项目存在问题主要集中在“研究方案不合理”“研究基础不足”“创新性不足”3个方面。建议该医院通过开展多维度的申报培训、精细化辅导等方式帮助申请人完善方案设计，通过设立孵育基金、加强在研课题过程管理等渠道强化研究基础，通过促进学科交叉融合拓展研究领域和思路、提升源头创新能力等措施提高申请书质量及申请中标率。 Abstract: Objective To analyze the peer review feedback of the non-funding of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) in the field of nervous system at Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, and put forward countermeasures to provide references for peers. Methods The content analysis method was employed to examine the peer review opinions of youth and general projects, which were not approved by NSFC in the field of nervous system from 2020 to 2023. A total of 867 expert opinions from 289 programs were categorized and analyzed. Results A total of 1219 reasons for not being funded were analyzed in this paper. It was found that among the youth and general projects, the five expert opinions with the highest mention rate and proportion were: “unreasonable research plans” (32.65%/85.12%), “insufficient research foundation” (18.54%/54.33%), “insufficient innovation” (15.67%/51.21%), “insufficient basis for project approval” (8.37%/30.10%) and “insufficient scientific and clinical value” (7.88%/28.72%). The mention rate and proportion of “insufficient innovation” (the mention rate: 17.13% vs. 13.84%; the proportion: 53.75% vs. 48.06%), “detailed problems” (the mention rate: 6.50% vs. 3.87%; the proportion: 23.13% vs. 15.50%) in youth projects were slightly higher than that in general projects. The mention rate of “the miss-selection of scientific problem” (4.28% vs. 4.06%) and the proportion of “insufficient summary of key scientific viewpoint” (24.38% vs. 23.26%) were also slightly higher in youth projects, but only the mention rate of “detailed problems” (χ2=4.322, P=0.038) was statistically significant between the two items. The expert consensus analysis showed that the top three feedback were consistent with the top three results above. Conclusions The problems in the peer review feedback of the hospital’s unfunded projects mainly focused on three aspects: “unreasonable research plans” “insufficient research foundation” and “insufficient innovation”. To improve the quality of the application forms and increase the rate of successful applications, many measures can be taken, including conducting multidimensional application training and detailed guidance to help applicants improve the scheme design; setting up incubation funds and strengthening the management of ongoing research projects, as well as other multi-channel supports to strengthen the research foundation; and promoting interdisciplinary integration to expand the research fields and ideas, and enhance the ability of source innovation.
Keywords
