基于模糊集合的评审决策信息融合

doi:10.3866/PKU.WHXB202210029

物理化学学报 >> 2023, Vol. 39 >> Issue (3): 2210029.doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB202210029

基于模糊集合的评审决策信息融合

王璐¹^,², 李根梓³, 戴亚飞¹, 付雪峰¹^,*()

¹ 国家自然科学基金委员会, 北京 100085
² 苏州大学功能纳米与软物质研究院, 江苏苏州 215123
³ 雁栖湖基础制造技术研究院(北京)有限公司, 北京 101407

收稿日期:2022-10-21 录用日期:2022-10-24 发布日期:2022-10-27
通讯作者: 付雪峰 E-mail:fuxf@nsfc.gov.cn

On Information Fusion by Fuzzy Sets for Decision Making in Peer Review

Lu Wang¹^,², Genzi Li³, Yafei Dai¹, Xuefeng Fu¹^,*()

¹ National Natural Science Foundation of China, Beijing 100085, China
² Institute of Functional Nano & Soft Materials (FUNSOM), Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, Jiangsu Province, China
³ Yanqi Lake Institute of Basic Manufacturing Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Beijing 101407, China

Received:2022-10-21 Accepted:2022-10-24 Published:2022-10-27
Contact: Xuefeng Fu E-mail:fuxf@nsfc.gov.cn
About author:Xuefeng Fu, Email: fuxf@nsfc.gov.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

同行评议是评价、评审和评估等活动的重要实施方式，尤其对于科学基金项目的评审，同行评议是保证项目质量的有效措施。同行评议过程中固有的模糊属性，会导致评审结果在一定程度上偏离被评价对象的内在价值。本文针对同行评议的模糊属性，提出一种评审决策信息融合的方法，通过对专家评分进行关联分析和自适应调整，实现评审结果围绕被评价对象的内在价值等关键指标达成共识，助力科学基金的评审机制改革和评审决策的智能化。

关键词: 同行评议, 模糊集合, 共识

Abstract:

Peer review plays a crucial role in quality insurance of projects, especially for natural science projects, in evaluation or assessment activities. However, the results of assessment by reviewers for a proposal may scatter due to the intrinsic fuzzy attributes in the peer review process. Specifically, it may introduce a review bias with razor-thin margins in the conversion of descriptive opinions into quantified scores. The accumulation of the bias might cause overturning in the results of evaluation, leading proposals toward a twilight zone between approval and rejection. Here, a novel approach to handling scores in evaluation is presented to address the ambiguity of brink in a tight competition, whereby correlation information from multiple sources could be merged to improve the degree of consensus among reviewers for each proposal according to its essential value. This method may provide an alternate evaluation mechanism for proposal reviews and help tackle the challenges in decision intelligence.

Key words: Peer review, Fuzzy sets, Consensus

点击下载补充材料PDF格式文件

王璐, 李根梓, 戴亚飞, 付雪峰. 基于模糊集合的评审决策信息融合[J]. 物理化学学报, 2023, 39(3), 2210029. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB202210029

Lu Wang, Genzi Li, Yafei Dai, Xuefeng Fu. On Information Fusion by Fuzzy Sets for Decision Making in Peer Review[J]. Acta Phys. -Chim. Sin. 2023, 39(3), 2210029. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB202210029

链接本文: https://www.whxb.pku.edu.cn/CN/10.3866/PKU.WHXB202210029

https://www.whxb.pku.edu.cn/CN/Y2023/V39/I3/2210029

图/表 4

图1

图2

图3

表1

参考文献 15

1	Wade, N. Science 1973, 179 (4069),158. doi: 10.1126/science.179.4069.158
2	Maclane, S. Science 1975, 190 (4215),617. doi: 10.1126/science.190.4215.61
3	Scott, A. Futures 2007, 39 (7),827. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009
4	Rosenthal, R. Behav. Brain Sci. 1982, 5 (2),235. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00011614
5	Blackburn, J. L. HakelM, D. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17 (5),378. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01715.x
6	Lee, C. J.; Sugimoto, C. R.; Zhang, G.; Cronin, B. J. Association Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64 (1),2. doi: 10.1002/asi.22784
7	Fu, X. F.; Dai, Y. F.; Huang, Y.; Cui, L.; Chen, Y. J. Acta Phys. -Chim. Sin. 2020, 36 (8), 2004048.
	付雪峰, 戴亚飞, 黄艳, 崔琳, 陈拥军物理化学学报, 2020, 36 (8), 2004048. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB202004048
8	Zadeh, L. A. Inf. Control 1965, 8 (3),338. doi: 10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X
9	Zadeh, L. A. Inf. Sci. 1975, 8 (3),199. doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90036-5
10	Zadeh, L. A. Inf. Sci. 1975, 8 (4),301. doi: 10.1016/0020-0255(75)90046-8
11	Chakraborty, S.; YehC, H. A Simulation based Comparative Study of Normalization Procedures in Multiattribute Decision Making. Proceedings of the 6th WSEAS International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Engineering and Data Bases, Corfu Island, Greece, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), 2007.
12	Rust, J.; Golombok, S. Modern Psychometrics: The Science of Psychological Assessment, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
13	Marsh, H. W.; Jayasinghe, U. W.; Bond, N. W. Am. Psychol. 2008, 63 (3),160. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
14	Vehtari, A.; Gelman, A.; Gabry, J. Statist. Comput. 2017, 27 (5),1413. doi: 10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4
15	Geisser, S. J. Am. Statist. Association 1975, 70 (350),320. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865

	G₁		G₂		G₃		G₄		G₅		G₆		G₇		ω_ij
	S_1j	ES_1j	S_2j	ES_2j	S_3j	ES_3j	S_4j	ES_4j	S_5j	ES_5j	S_6j	ES_6j	S_7j	ES_7j	ω_ij
P₁	90	89.33	85	85.32	80	80	85	85	97	97	86	87.85	85	86.75	0.55
P₂	94	91.60	93	90.46	96	93.11	95	93.51	98	98	97	97	93	93	0.66
P₃	85	85	85	85.48	90	88.82	90	90.28	95	95	88	88.73	90	90	0.53
P₄	89	88.77	80	82.38	85	86.28	91	90.88	96	96	85	87.11	85	86.74	0.33
P₅	80	80	90	90	90	88.96	90	90.29	98	98	92	91.66	88	88.12	0.68
P₆	84	86.25	82	84.14	80	80	92	92	95	95	89	89.29	88	88	0.61
P₇	93	93	88	87.16	92	92	92	92	93	93	91	90.81	87	87	0.84
P₈	94	93.35	84	84.86	92	90.22	90	90.24	98	98	85	85	88	88.26	0.56
P₉	90	89.27	87	86.73	89	88.58	91	91	99	99	90	89.92	89	88.81	0.57
μ_ES	88.51		86.28		87.55		90.58		96.56		89.71		88.52
排序	5		7		6		2		1		3		4
μ_S	88.78		86		88.22		90.67		96.56		89.22		88.11
排序	4		7		5		2		1		3		6
μ_LS	89.29		85.86		88.29		90.86		96.71		88.71		87.86
排序	3		7		5		2		1		4		6

[1]	戴亚飞, 高飞雪, 王翠霞, 陈拥军. 建立学术共同体互信的基金评审机制的尝试与思考[J]. 物理化学学报, 2020, 36(8): 2003034 - .
[2]	付雪峰, 戴亚飞, 黄艳, 崔琳, 陈拥军. 浅析基金评审的模糊属性[J]. 物理化学学报, 2020, 36(8): 2004048 - .
[3]	李文聪, 徐进, 申洁, 刘娟娟, 范英杰, 杨俊林. 英国国家科研与创新署学科交叉研究资助机制及启示[J]. 物理化学学报, 2020, 36(11): 2008058 - .

基于模糊集合的评审决策信息融合

On Information Fusion by Fuzzy Sets for Decision Making in Peer Review

RichHTML

PDF

赞

可视化

摘要/Abstract

支持信息

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 4

参考文献 15

相关文章 3

Metrics

推荐阅读 0