基于D-S证据理论的科学基金立项评估问题研究
|
摘要
作为国家支持基础研究的主渠道之一,科学基金在国家创新体系中发挥重要作用。科学基金立项评估是科学基金管理的核心环节,决定了政府科技投入能否得以有效的利用,关系到优秀的科研工作者能否通过良性竞争获得有限的科技资源。目前,关于科学基金项目立项评估的研究主要是沿用一般项目评估方法,尚缺乏针对科学基金项目立项评估的特点对评估过程中的具体问题所开展的理论研究。因此,选择科学基金立项评估问题为研究对象,具有重要的现实意义和理论价值。
科学基金立项评估是以评审专家的评审意见为根本依据,因此评审专家的遴选和评审意见的处理是立项评估的核心。评审专家遴选需考察的因素复杂,且遴选过程存在诸多不确定性。另一方面,科学基金项目探索性强,即使同行专家也很可能存在一些不确切知晓的内容,评审意见本身通常以语言评价信息的形式给出。因此,科学基金立项评估属于特定环境下的复杂不确定性决策问题。研究中运用D-S证据理论,灰色理论、主观证据推理理论和语言评价方法对科学基金立项评估问题进行了理论上的探索。具体研究内容和创新性成果如下:
1.通过系统地比较分析国内外关于证据合成规则的主要研究成果,提出证据冲突分析方法及利用冲突分析结论灵活选用证据合成策略的新思路。首先根据Jousselme距离公式进行冲突分析,使冲突程度较低的证据结成虚拟联盟,对联盟内和联盟间分别使用不同的证据合成规则。然后通过计算证据系统对不同证据的支持程度衡量证据的可靠性,从而实现对虚拟联盟的客观赋权。通过上述方法,可以有效的解决冲突证据合成问题,并在保证收敛速度的同时降低决策风险。最后通过与经典算例的比较,验证该方法的有效性和优越性。上述方法为构建评审专家遴选与评审意见处理方法奠定了理论基础。
2.针对评审专家遴选因素的复杂性和不确定性,构建了基于D-S证据理论的多遴选指标层次结构模型。通过对国内外相关文献的分析,结合国内科学基金管理的实际情况,构建一套涵盖评审能力、科技信誉和评审绩效三个方面信息的专家遴选指标体系。论述了各遴选指标的分析与评价方法,设计了基于衰退系数的累计命中率和离散率两个定量指标,并在定量指标处理中构造了中心点三角白化权函数,结合灰色理论将定量数据转化为适于应用D-S证据理论处理的形式。
3.在分析现有语言评价信息处理方法的基础上,根据立项评估工作的实际需要,提出了二维语言评价信息的概念及相关决策问题,并利用主观证据推理理论处理二维语言评价信息。针对科学基金立项评估中识别与处理非共识项目的难题,提出基于二维语言评价信息的评审意见共识性分析方法。为合理的度量评审意见的非共识程度,设计了二维语言评价信息的距离公式,证明了相关性质。以若干评审意见的相似关系描述评审意见间的层次结构关系,便于分析非共识的产生原因,有利于从非共识项目中选择具备资助价值的项目。针对评审专家权重信息完全未知、权重信息为实数及权重信息为二维语言评价信息三种不同情况,设计了评审意见集结方法和基于评审意见集结结果的排序与择优规则。
4.为了系统的验证研究的实用性和有效性,以国家自然科学基金的通讯评审专家遴选和面上项目评审意见处理为背景进行实证研究。在以往立项评估过程的现实数据环境下,使用基于D-S证据理论的评审专家遴选模型和基于二维语言评价信息的评审意见处理方法能够取得预想效果。通过与现行评审意见处理方法和二元语义方法的比较研究,说明应用二维语言评价信息方法处理评审意见具有一定准确性优势,并验证了科学基金立项评审中要求评审专家反馈熟悉程度信息的实际意义。
As the main support channel to basic research, scientific foundation has played an important role in the national innovation system. Scientific Foundation Project Selection (SFPS) concerns whether government’s investment in science and technology can be effectively utilized and outstanding scientists can obtain limited supports by healthy competition. At present, studies on SFPS mainly use the traditional projects evaluation methods, and there is little study based on the characteristics of SFPS or regarded the specific issues in the evaluation process. As a result, it is very important both for theory and practice that the specific issues of SFPS are chosen as the research object.
SFPS is strictly pursuant to peer experts’opinions, so the selection of peer experts and disposal of comments from peer experts would be the key points. In the process of selecting peer experts, all relative factors are not only complex, but also provided with the characters of uncertainty. On the other hand, Science foundation projects are of strongly explorative, even if the peer experts are also likely to face the proposal beyond their awareness, so peer experts’reviews are usually given in the form of linguistic assessment information. Therefore, SFPS belongs to a decision-making issue with complexity and uncertainty in a particular environment. The author applys D-S Evidence Theory, Grey Theory, Subjective Evidential Reasoning and Linguistic Assessment Approach to complete a theoretical exploration on SFPS. The main content and innovative research results are as follows:
1. The new ideas of conflict analysis and choosing evidence combination according to conflict analysis result are suggested based on the comparative discussion of relative studies at home and abroad. Via conflict analysis by Jousselme distance, evidences with less conflict would form virtual leagues, and then DS rule and ER rule are appled to combine the evidences in the same league and the evdences of different leagues respectively. To measure the reliability of evidence, the support degrees of each evidence by whole evidence system are calculated, and then objective weights of virtual leagues would be available. In such way, our combination rule would solve the problem of combining evidences with strong conflict, achieve convergence and reduce the risk in the decision-making. By a classic example, the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed combination rule is finally tested and verified. Forementioned approach is important theoretical basis to construct models for the selection of peer experts and disposal of comments.
2. Considering the complicated and uncertain factors in peer expert selection, a multi-level model with selection criteria is constructed based on D-S Evidence Theory. By the way of analyzing domestic and overseas related literature and investigating practically, the author suggests an expert selection indicator system which contains three aspects: review ability, science credibility and review performance. The analysis and evaluation approach to each indicator is also expatiated. The author designs 2 quantitative criteria as damping constant based cumulative hit rate and cumulativedeviation rate, proposes central point triangle whiten function which makes quantitative criteria could be combined by D-S Evidence Theory directly.
3. On the basis of analysing existed methods of linguistic assessment information and actual needs of SFPS, the author proposes a new concept of 2-dimension linguistic assessment information (2-DLAI) and corresponding decision-making issues, and expresses 2-DLAI by the frame of subjective evidential reasoning. Aiming at identifying and handling controversial projects in SFPS, a consensus analysis approach for experts’comments based on 2-DLAI is suggested. To measure disagreement degree reasonablly, the author designs a 2-DLAI distance formula, and prooves relevant properties. According to the similarity relations of experts’comments, the hierarchical structure relations of experts’comments are analyzed which facilitates to find out causes of disagreements and seek valuable ones from controversial projects. The experts’comments aggregation approaches are proposed under 3 different situations: non-weighted, real number weighted and 2-DLAI weighted respectively, two ordering rules based on comments aggregation results are also suggested.
4. To verify the practicality and efficiency of the proposed methods, the author carries out empirical research on selecting peer experts and disposing comments from peer experts in the background of NSFC’s general projects. The expert selection model based on D-S Evidence Theory and the comments disposal method based on 2-DLAI all pass demonstration test with practical data. A comparative study shows that 2-DLAI method is more accurate than present method and 2-tuple linguistic method in the process of comments disposal, also illustrates the realistic significance of familiarity degree imformation from peer experts.
科学基金立项评估是以评审专家的评审意见为根本依据,因此评审专家的遴选和评审意见的处理是立项评估的核心。评审专家遴选需考察的因素复杂,且遴选过程存在诸多不确定性。另一方面,科学基金项目探索性强,即使同行专家也很可能存在一些不确切知晓的内容,评审意见本身通常以语言评价信息的形式给出。因此,科学基金立项评估属于特定环境下的复杂不确定性决策问题。研究中运用D-S证据理论,灰色理论、主观证据推理理论和语言评价方法对科学基金立项评估问题进行了理论上的探索。具体研究内容和创新性成果如下:
1.通过系统地比较分析国内外关于证据合成规则的主要研究成果,提出证据冲突分析方法及利用冲突分析结论灵活选用证据合成策略的新思路。首先根据Jousselme距离公式进行冲突分析,使冲突程度较低的证据结成虚拟联盟,对联盟内和联盟间分别使用不同的证据合成规则。然后通过计算证据系统对不同证据的支持程度衡量证据的可靠性,从而实现对虚拟联盟的客观赋权。通过上述方法,可以有效的解决冲突证据合成问题,并在保证收敛速度的同时降低决策风险。最后通过与经典算例的比较,验证该方法的有效性和优越性。上述方法为构建评审专家遴选与评审意见处理方法奠定了理论基础。
2.针对评审专家遴选因素的复杂性和不确定性,构建了基于D-S证据理论的多遴选指标层次结构模型。通过对国内外相关文献的分析,结合国内科学基金管理的实际情况,构建一套涵盖评审能力、科技信誉和评审绩效三个方面信息的专家遴选指标体系。论述了各遴选指标的分析与评价方法,设计了基于衰退系数的累计命中率和离散率两个定量指标,并在定量指标处理中构造了中心点三角白化权函数,结合灰色理论将定量数据转化为适于应用D-S证据理论处理的形式。
3.在分析现有语言评价信息处理方法的基础上,根据立项评估工作的实际需要,提出了二维语言评价信息的概念及相关决策问题,并利用主观证据推理理论处理二维语言评价信息。针对科学基金立项评估中识别与处理非共识项目的难题,提出基于二维语言评价信息的评审意见共识性分析方法。为合理的度量评审意见的非共识程度,设计了二维语言评价信息的距离公式,证明了相关性质。以若干评审意见的相似关系描述评审意见间的层次结构关系,便于分析非共识的产生原因,有利于从非共识项目中选择具备资助价值的项目。针对评审专家权重信息完全未知、权重信息为实数及权重信息为二维语言评价信息三种不同情况,设计了评审意见集结方法和基于评审意见集结结果的排序与择优规则。
4.为了系统的验证研究的实用性和有效性,以国家自然科学基金的通讯评审专家遴选和面上项目评审意见处理为背景进行实证研究。在以往立项评估过程的现实数据环境下,使用基于D-S证据理论的评审专家遴选模型和基于二维语言评价信息的评审意见处理方法能够取得预想效果。通过与现行评审意见处理方法和二元语义方法的比较研究,说明应用二维语言评价信息方法处理评审意见具有一定准确性优势,并验证了科学基金立项评审中要求评审专家反馈熟悉程度信息的实际意义。
As the main support channel to basic research, scientific foundation has played an important role in the national innovation system. Scientific Foundation Project Selection (SFPS) concerns whether government’s investment in science and technology can be effectively utilized and outstanding scientists can obtain limited supports by healthy competition. At present, studies on SFPS mainly use the traditional projects evaluation methods, and there is little study based on the characteristics of SFPS or regarded the specific issues in the evaluation process. As a result, it is very important both for theory and practice that the specific issues of SFPS are chosen as the research object.
SFPS is strictly pursuant to peer experts’opinions, so the selection of peer experts and disposal of comments from peer experts would be the key points. In the process of selecting peer experts, all relative factors are not only complex, but also provided with the characters of uncertainty. On the other hand, Science foundation projects are of strongly explorative, even if the peer experts are also likely to face the proposal beyond their awareness, so peer experts’reviews are usually given in the form of linguistic assessment information. Therefore, SFPS belongs to a decision-making issue with complexity and uncertainty in a particular environment. The author applys D-S Evidence Theory, Grey Theory, Subjective Evidential Reasoning and Linguistic Assessment Approach to complete a theoretical exploration on SFPS. The main content and innovative research results are as follows:
1. The new ideas of conflict analysis and choosing evidence combination according to conflict analysis result are suggested based on the comparative discussion of relative studies at home and abroad. Via conflict analysis by Jousselme distance, evidences with less conflict would form virtual leagues, and then DS rule and ER rule are appled to combine the evidences in the same league and the evdences of different leagues respectively. To measure the reliability of evidence, the support degrees of each evidence by whole evidence system are calculated, and then objective weights of virtual leagues would be available. In such way, our combination rule would solve the problem of combining evidences with strong conflict, achieve convergence and reduce the risk in the decision-making. By a classic example, the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed combination rule is finally tested and verified. Forementioned approach is important theoretical basis to construct models for the selection of peer experts and disposal of comments.
2. Considering the complicated and uncertain factors in peer expert selection, a multi-level model with selection criteria is constructed based on D-S Evidence Theory. By the way of analyzing domestic and overseas related literature and investigating practically, the author suggests an expert selection indicator system which contains three aspects: review ability, science credibility and review performance. The analysis and evaluation approach to each indicator is also expatiated. The author designs 2 quantitative criteria as damping constant based cumulative hit rate and cumulativedeviation rate, proposes central point triangle whiten function which makes quantitative criteria could be combined by D-S Evidence Theory directly.
3. On the basis of analysing existed methods of linguistic assessment information and actual needs of SFPS, the author proposes a new concept of 2-dimension linguistic assessment information (2-DLAI) and corresponding decision-making issues, and expresses 2-DLAI by the frame of subjective evidential reasoning. Aiming at identifying and handling controversial projects in SFPS, a consensus analysis approach for experts’comments based on 2-DLAI is suggested. To measure disagreement degree reasonablly, the author designs a 2-DLAI distance formula, and prooves relevant properties. According to the similarity relations of experts’comments, the hierarchical structure relations of experts’comments are analyzed which facilitates to find out causes of disagreements and seek valuable ones from controversial projects. The experts’comments aggregation approaches are proposed under 3 different situations: non-weighted, real number weighted and 2-DLAI weighted respectively, two ordering rules based on comments aggregation results are also suggested.
4. To verify the practicality and efficiency of the proposed methods, the author carries out empirical research on selecting peer experts and disposing comments from peer experts in the background of NSFC’s general projects. The expert selection model based on D-S Evidence Theory and the comments disposal method based on 2-DLAI all pass demonstration test with practical data. A comparative study shows that 2-DLAI method is more accurate than present method and 2-tuple linguistic method in the process of comments disposal, also illustrates the realistic significance of familiarity degree imformation from peer experts.
引文
[1]周奇中.科学技术创新管理[M].北京:经济科学出版社, 2002.
[2]刘溜,刘彦.国家自然科学基金:一个可能的改革摹本[J].中国新闻周刊, 2004, (47): 33-35.
[3]王其冬.发展中创新:国家自然科学基金现代管理体系的构建[D].大连理工大学博士论文, 2004.
[4]王凭慧.科技项目评价方法[M].北京:科学出版社, 2003.
[5] Guy K, Clark J, Balazs K, et al.. Strategic Options for the Evaluation of the R&D Programmes of the European Union[R]. UK: STOA, 1998.
[6] Barker D, Loyd P. The evaluation of Scientific Research in the United Kingdom[A]. The Evaluation of Scientific Research: Selected Experience[R]. OECD/GD, 1997.
[7] Trochim W, Marcus S, Masse L, Richard P. Moser et al.. The evaluation of large research initiatives a participatory integrative mixed-methods approach [J]. American Journal of Evaluation, 2008, 29 (1): 8-28.
[8]陈晓剑,梁梁.系统评价方法及应用[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社, 1993.
[9]戚安邦.项目评估学[M].天津:南开大学出版社, 2006.
[10]吴述尧.同行评议方法论[M].北京:科学出版社, 1996.
[11]刘作仪,陈晓田.科学研究评价的性质作用方法及程序[J].科研管理, 2002, (2): 33-40.
[12]肖利.试论国家科技项目的分类评价、目标评价和程序规范[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2004, (3): 12-15.
[13]朱大保.改革科学基金项目评审和管理机制的探讨[J].中国科学基金, 2003, (6): 350-353.
[14]徐彩荣, NSFC同行评议研究[D].中国科学院科技政策与管理科学研究所硕士学位论文, 2005.
[15]王志强.关于完善同行评议制度的若干问题和思考[J].中国科学基金, 2002, (5): 309-313.
[16]冯锋,于晟,于振良.关于科学研究项目同行评议的一些政策性分析[J].中国科学基金, 2007, (1): 42-46.
[17]马健.科研项目遴选制度的缺陷:证据及其解释[J].科学学研究, 2007, 12: 1151-1155.
[18]王平,宋子良.同行评议制的固有缺点与局限性[J].科技管理研究, 2000, (4): 22-26.
[19]陈进寿.从人际关系谈同行评议制的改进[J].中国科学基金, 2002, (3): 182-184.
[20]谢焕瑛,国家重点实验室评估体系研究[D].大连理工大学博士学位论文, 2005.
[21] Jerome P K. Peer Review: crude and understudied, but indispensable[C]. The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, 1994. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96–7.
[22]李扉南,陈浩.将程序正义引入学术评审领域的探讨[J].科研管理, 2003, 24 (1): 34-39.
[23]姜从盛.科技项目评价专家的信用行为分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2004, (3): 34-36.
[24]江新华.论我国学术评审制度的缺陷与创新[J].科学学研究, 2005, 23 (5) : 618 - 622.
[25] Benos D, et al.. The ups and downs of peer review[J]. Advances in Physiology Education, 2007, 31(2): 145-152.
[26]龚旭.同行评议公正性的影响因素分析[J].科学学研究, 2004, (06).
[27] Relman A S. The new medical-industrial complex[J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303: 963-970.
[28] Relman A S. Dealing with conflicts of interest[J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310: 1182-1183.
[29]赵乐静.论科学研究中的利益冲突[J].自然辩证法研究, 2001, (8): 36-40.
[30] Dennis F. Thompson.Understandingfinancial conflicts of interest [J]. New England Medicine Journal, 1993, 329: 573-576.
[31] NSFC同行评议手册调研组. NSFC同行评议手册调研报告[R]. 2002.
[32]吴彤.国家科技部基础研究评价调查报告[R]. 2001.
[33]周颖,王蒲生.同行评议中的利益冲突分析与治理对策[J].科学学研究, 2003, 21 (3): 298-302.
[34] Rumsey T S. One editor’s views on conflict of interest[J]. Journal Animal Science, 1999, 77: 2379–2383.
[35] Lloyd M E. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication[J]. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1990, 23 (4): 539-543.
[36] Gilbert J R, Williams E S, Lundberg G D. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process?[J] Journal of the American Medical Assosiation, 1994, 272 (2): 139-142.
[37] Chubin D. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy[M]. SUNY Press, 1990.
[38]王晶华,施红玉.从系统科学角度看学科交叉现象[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2002 (12): 5-8.
[39] Simon Wessely, Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?[J] ,The Lancet, 1998, 325(9124): 301-305.
[40] Hodgson C. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer-review Influence of internal and external reviewers and committees[J]. The Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 1995,11 (10): 864-868.
[41] Jayasinghe U W, Marsh H W, Bond N. Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience[J]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2001, 23 (4): 343–364.
[42] Genereux D, Sen G. Suggestion for Proposal Reviews[J]. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 2004. 85 (17): 137–144.
[43]王其冬.划分临界项目的一种多目标决策方法[A].决策科学的理论、方法与应用[C].北京:卓越出版社, 2000: 25-28.
[44]杨列勋,汪寿阳,席酉民.科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J].科学学研究, 2002, (2): 185-188.
[45]郝凤霞,刘静岩,陈忠.技术研发项目中同行专家评议产生非共识的原因分析[J].中国软科学, 2004, (12): 92-96.
[46]郑兴东等.基金项目同行评议中专家非共识性的度量研究[J].中华医学科研管理杂志, 2005, 18 (3): 141-144.
[47]姚玉鹏.对完善国家自然科学基金“3+X”同行评议方式的分析和建议[J].中国科学基金, 2007, (2): 89-91.
[48]李大鹏,茹继平,刘定燕.“3+X”评议方式的实践与认识[J].中国科学基金, 2006, (2): 110-114.
[49]夏蓓丽. APF组合分析法在哲学社会科学评价中的运用[J].情报科学, 2007, 25 (9): 1337-1342.
[50]赵波,周传敬.评价学术期刊的新文献计量指标—h指数及其发展[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2007, 18 (5) :775-777.
[51]吴勇,朱卫东.基金项目负责人科研失信行为的制度分析[J].科学学研究, 2007, (S2): 354-358.
[52] Moed H F, Burger W J M, Frankfort J G, Van Raan A F G. A comparative study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgment[J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 8 (3-4): 149-159.
[53] Upali W. Jayasinghe, Herbert W. Marsh and Nigel Bond. A multilevel cross-classified modeling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings [J], Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 2003, 8 (166): 279-300.
[54] Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review.Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’decisions[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 63 (2): 297-320.
[55] Kostoff R N. Federal Research Impact Assessment: State-of-the-Art[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1994, 6: 428-440.
[56] Kostoff, R N. Research Program Peer Review: Principles, Practices, Protocols[J]. Defense Technical Information Center, 1997.
[57] Kostoff R N, Miller R, Tshiteya R. Advanced technology development program review- a US Department of the Navy case study[J]. R&D Management, 2001, 31 (3): 287-298.
[58]曲立,吕晓岚.国内外科技项目评价方法比较[J].企业经济, 2005, (9): 36-38.
[59]佘诗刚.法国科技管理体制与公共机构运行模式[J].科技政策与发展战略, 2002,(8).
[60]毛振芹,程桂枝,唐五湘.部分科技发达国家科技计划项目的管理模式及启示[J].武汉工业学院学报, 2003, (3): 100—103.
[61]周浙闽.日本科技评估及其对我省科技项目管理工作的启示[J].情报检索, 2003, (3): 27-31.
[62]鲍玉昆,张金隆,李新男.国外科技评估实践及对我国的借鉴[J].软科学, 2003, (2): 22-24.
[63] Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics[J]. Journal of documen-tation, 1969, 25: 348-349.
[64] Eliezer Geisler,科学技术测度体系[M].周萍等译,北京:科学技术文献出版社, 2004.
[65]邱均平,文献计量学[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社, 1988.
[66] Gupta V K, Pangannayab N B. Carbon nanotubes: bibliometric analysis of patents[J]. World Patent Information, 2000, 22 (3): 185-189.
[67]曹学艳,胡文静.我国文献计量学进展研究[J].情报杂志, 2004, 2: 67-69.
[68]邱均平.关于“文献计量学”术语及其定义[J].图书情报知识, 1985, (3).
[69]邱均平.试论文献计量学的产生和发展[J].情报学刊, 1985, 6 (4): 22-25.
[70]邱均平.我国科技文献的时序分布和老化研究[J].图书情报工作, 1989, (4): 5-12.
[71]刘东维.洛特卡定律和普赖斯定律的验证[J].情报学报,1987, 6 (2): 91-97.
[72]方曙,李后强.洛特卡定律与分形理论[J].图书情报工作, 1989, (6): 9-14.
[73]邱均平,黄建东.我国当代图书出版数学模型的研究[J].图书情报工作, 1990, (5): 22.
[74]黄建东.试用最大熵谱分析法探索文献增长的周期[J].情报科学, 1988, 9 (3): 9-12.
[75]李正吾.科学文献增长和老化的灰色预测模型(GM)[J].情报学报, 1990, 9 (5): 342-352.
[76] Garfield E Pudovkin, AI, Istomin VS. Mapping the output of topical searches in the Web of knowledge and the case of Watson-Crick[J]. Information technology and libraries, 2003 22 (4): 183-187.
[77] Leydesdorff L. Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2004, 60 (4): 371-427.
[78] Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V. A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories[J]. Scientometrics,2004, 61 (1): 129-145.
[79] Chen C. Tracing knowledge diffusion[J]. Scietometrics, 2004, 59 (2): 199-211.
[80] van Raan A F J, van Leeuwen T N. Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research[J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31 (4): 611-632.
[81]邱均平.信息计量学(一)第一讲信息计量学的兴起和发展[J].情报理论与实践, 2000, (1): 78-81.
[82]周辉,张光红,蔡晖,郑英姿.原创性研究成果的SCI引用分析[J].中国科学基金, 2002, (02): 85-87.
[83] Development O F E C. Frascati manual: proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development[M]. OECD, 2002.
[84] Magnus H. Daniel W. How should research performance be measured? Evidence from ranking of academic economists. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance. March , 2008.
[85]马晓光,连燕华,沈全锋等.同行评议中专家识别研究[J].研究与发展管理, 2003, 15 (3): 68-72.
[86] Catanach S R, Stout D E. Current practices in the external peer review process for promotion and tenure decisions[J]. Journal of Accounting Education, 2000, 18: 171-188.
[87]郑称德,同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其模型研究[J].科研管理,2002, 23 (2): 41-45.
[88]王平,刘爱玲.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现[J].科技管理研究, 1997 (4), 38-40.
[89]王成红,何杰,刘克,宋苏.关于同行评议专家定量评估指标研究的几个新结果[J].系统工程理论与实践,2004(2): 83-89.
[90]齐丽丽,司晓悦.对我国同行评议专家遴选制度的建议[J].科技成果纵横, 2008, 5: 26-28.
[91]赵黎明,徐孝涵,张卫东.选择同行评议专家的指标体系[J].科研管理, 1995, 15 (1): 17-21.
[92]何杰,王成红,刘克.对同行评议专家评议工作进行评估的思考[J].中国科学基金, 2004, (1): 47-50.
[93]赵丽莹,冯树民等.如何选择“小同行”审稿专家[J].编辑学报, 2007, 1: 75.
[94]贺林科,贾毅华.关于科学基金同行评议的一些思考[J].中国科学基金, 2005, (2): 115-116.
[95]李莹,李燕萍.我国评估评审专家评价体系的构建问题研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2005, (01): 42-45.
[96]李明德,陈奎宁.美国的科研资助和合同制[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江科学技术出版社, 1989.
[97]何香香,王家平.关于完善同行评议体系的一些思考[J].中国科学基金, 2005, (2):112-114.
[98]王国彪,彭芳瑜.国家自然科学基金同行评议结果评价方法与专家遴选因素分析[J].中国科学基金, 2008, 6: 372-376.
[99]王俭,景衍斌,陈锐,赵京.微观计量LPM模型在同行评议专家选择中的运用[J].科学学研究, 2008, 12: 1243-1247.
[100]郑称德,同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其模型研究[J].科研管理,2002, 23 (2): 41-45.
[101]陈侠,樊治平.基于语言评价矩阵的评判专家水平研究[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2007, 29 (10): 1665-1668.
[102] Cook W D, Golany B, KressM, etc. Optimal allocation of p roposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking [J]. Management Science, 2005, 51 (4): 655-661.
[103] Sun YH, Ma J, Fan ZP, Wang J. A hybrid knowledge and model approach for reviewer assignment [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2008, 34 (2): 817-824.
[104] Tian Q J, Ma J, Liu O. A hybrid knowledge and model system for R&D project selection [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2002, 23 (3): 265-271.
[105]樊治平,陈媛.科技类评审中项目分组的建模与优化[J].科研管理, 2008, 29 (6): 110-115.
[106]曲久龙.技计划项目评估理论与方法研究[D].吉林大学博士学位论文, 2006.
[107] Pol K L, Ang B W, Bai F. A Comparative Analysis of R&D Project Evaluation Methods, R&D Management, 2001, 31 (1): 63-75.
[108]刘景江等.国外R&D项目测度与评价研究述评科研管理2001,22(6): 9-14.
[109]项建国,黄荣兵,杨漫琳. R&D项目选择模型和终止模型的比较[J].科研管理, 1999, 20 (2): 99-103.
[110]席酉民,杨列勋. R&D项目评估整体模型研究[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2002, 22 (10): 105-112.
[111] Rengarajan S, Jagannathan P. Project Selection by Scoring for a Large R&D Organisation in a Developing Country[J]. R &D Management, 1997, 27 (2): 155-161.
[112]王其冬,武佩珍,胡扬.属性层次模型在国家自然科学基金项目评审中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2002, (11): 111-116.
[113]王其冬,武佩珍,程建刚等.层次分析法在国家自然科学基金项目评审中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2001, (7): 119-124.
[114]陈学中,盛昭瀚,李文喜.科研项目选择的0-1目标规划模型[J].科研管理, 2005, 26 (4): 117-121.
[115]陈学中,李光红.投资项目选择的目标规划模型及其应用[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2001 (2): 102-105.
[116]黄本笑,彭玉梅.运用网络分析法选择R-D项目[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2003 (2): 5-7.
[117]张坚,黄现.陶树人.基于遗传算法的R&D项目实物期权评价模[J].科研管理, 2004, 25 (2): 44-48.
[118]马欣.科技项目投资的实物期权分析框架[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, (6): 817-821.
[119] Wang Juite, Hwang W L. A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model[J]. Omega, 2007, 35: 247-257.
[120]肖健华,吴今培,陈世权.一种应用聚类分析的科研立项评审数据处理方法[J].科研管理, 2000, 21 (3): 82-87.
[121]樊宏,陈世权.基于DEA算法的科研评审排序方法与应用[J].科研管理, 2002, 23 (4) : 65-69.
[122] Eilat H, Golany B, Shtub A. Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology, European Journal of Operational Research, 2006, 172 (3): 1018-1039.
[123] Yong Hak Chun. Sequential Decisions Under Uncertainty in the R&D Project Selection Problem[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 1994, 41 (4): 404-413
[124]刘克,王成红,何杰,宋苏.国家自然科学基金面上项目通讯评议结果的公平化处理[J].中国科学基金, 2003, (4): 234-237
[125] Hochbaum DS, Levin A. Methodologies and algorithms for group-rankings decision[J]. Management Science, 2006, 52 (9): 1394-1408.
[126]肖人毅,王长锐.科研基金项目立项评估方法的研究与改进[J].系统工程理论与实践2004, 12(5): 66-71.
[127]王雄,吴庆田.基于模糊语言的科研基金项目立项评估研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2007, (9): 61-63.
[128]肖健华,吴今培.基于粗糙集理论的科研立项总结评价方法[J].科研管理, 2001, 22(05): 8-12.
[129]周春喜.科研项目立项的多层次灰色综合评审[J].科技进步与对策, 2006, (10): 136-139.
[130]李银朋,刘广毅.基于灰色综合评价方法的科技项目选择[J].大庆石油学院学报, 2008, 32 (3): 89-92.
[131]陈世权,孙有发,李秀平等.模糊排序专家系统及其在科研管理中的应用[J].模糊系统与数学, 2000, 14 (1): 94-99.
[132]杨世荣.模糊综合评判在科研项目评审中的应用[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2001, (5): 30-32.
[133] Carlsson Christer, Fullér Robert, Markku Heikkil?, Péter Majlender. A fuzzy approach to R&D project portfolio selection[J].International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2007, 44(2): 93-105.
[134]潘杰义,刘西林.科研项目评价指标体系及模糊优选决策模型研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2004, 25(1): 9-11.
[135]肖健华,吴今培,陈世权等.基金项目立项评审系统的设计[J].系统工程, 1999, 17 (5): 71-76.
[136]陈致宇,陈世权,吴今培.科研项目立项评审智能管理系统[J].科研管理, 2002, 23 (4): 132–138.
[137]孙宏元,黄德云,朱东华.科技评价的智能信息处理方法研究[J].预测, 2002, (4): 28-29, 59.
[138]李智,李敏强.基金项目评审管理中智能交互式文档检索[J].研究与发展管理, 2005, 17 (3): 106-110.
[139]刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择[D].武汉大学博士论文,2002.
[140]吴述尧.再论同行评议的功能[J].中国科学基金, 1998, 3 (19): 215-219. [ 141 ] Porter R. What do grant reviewers really want, anyway?[J]. Journal of Research Administration. 2005, 36 (2): 34-37.
[142]国连杰,曹裕波,刘薇,韩瑛.关于地球科学部同行评议系统评估的调研[J].中国科学基金, 2006, (06): 364-368.
[143] National Science Foundation. (2004). NSB-04-43: Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s merit review process, Fiscal Year 2003. Retrieved 7 July 2004. from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2004/MRreport_2003_final.pdf.
[144] Schmidt R L, Freeland J R. Recent progress in modeling R&D project-selection progresses [J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1992, 39 (2): 189-201.
[145] Moon, W. M. Integration of geophysical and geological data using evidential belief function [J]. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, 1990 (2): 711 -720
[146] Otman B, Y Xiaohong. Engine fault diagnosis based on multi-sensor information fusion using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory [J]. Information Fusion, 2007, 8 (4): 379-386.
[147]郭代飞,杨义先,胡正名.基于大规模网络的自适应入侵响应模型研究[J].北京邮电大学学报, 2004, 27 (1): 79-83.
[148]诸葛建伟,王大为等.基于D-S证据理论的网络异常检测方法[J].软件学报, 2006, 17 (3): 463-471.
[149]孙怀江,胡钟山,杨静宇,基于证据理论的多分类器融合方法研究[J],计算机学报,2001, 3: 231-235.
[150] Yang J B, Singh M G. An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-Attribute decision making with uncertainty[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1994, 24 (1): 1-18.
[151]杨春、李怀祖,一个证据推理模型及其在专家意见综合中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,2001 (4):43-48.
[152] Xu D L, Yang J B, Wang Y M. The evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty[J]. European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2006) 1914-1943.
[153] Wang Y M, Yang J B et al. The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees[J]. European Journal of Operational Research 2006 (175) 35-66.
[154] Guo M, Yang J B et al. Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research[J]. 2007, 182 (3): 1294-1312.
[155] Beynon M. DS/AHP method: A Mathematical Analysis, Including an Understanding of Uncertainty[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2002, 140 (1), 149-165.
[156] Beynon M. A Method of Aggregation in DS/AHP for Group Decision-Making with the Non-Equivalent Importance of Individuals in the Group [J]. Computes & Operations Research,2005b, 32, 1881-1896.
[157] Beynon M. The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2006, 15, 21-42.
[158] Hua Z S,Gong B G, Xu X Y. A DS-AHP approach for multi-attribute decision making problem with incomplete information[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2008, 34 (3): 2221-2227.
[159]张全,樊治平,孟军. D-S理论在不确定性多属性决策中的应用[J].系统工程与电子技术, 1999, 21 (11): 7-10.
[160]杨萍,刘卫东.基于证据理论的群决策层次评价方法研究[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2002, 24 (2): 42-44.
[161]王坚强,何波.基于证据推理的信息不完全确定的MCDM方法[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2005, 27 (4): 659-661.
[162] Dempster A P. Upper and lower probabiIities induced by amulti-valued mapping[J]. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967, 38: 325-339.
[163] Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence[M]. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1976.
[164] Zadeh L A.Review of books: A mathematical theory of evidence[J]. AI Magazine, 1984, 5(3): 81-83.
[165] Smets P. The combination of evidence in the Transferable Be1ief Model[J]. IEEE Trans.on Patem Analysis and Machine IntelIigence, 1990, 12 (5): 447-458.
[166] Smets P. Belief functions: the disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized Bayesian theorem[J]. International Journal of Approximate reasoning, 1993 (9):1-35.
[167] Smets P. Belief functions on real numbers[J]. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2005, 40 (3): 181–223.
[168] Yager R.R., On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules, Information Sciences, 1987 (41): 93–138.
[169] Takahiko. H, Decision rule for pattern classification by integrating interval feature values[J].Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,1998,20 (4): 440-447.
[170]孙全,叶秀清,顾伟康.一种新的基于证据理论的合成公式[J].电子学报, 2000, 28 (8): 117-119.
[171] Lefevre E, Colot O. Vannooreneverghe P. Belief function combination and conflict management[J]. Information Fusion, 2002, 3 (3): 149-162.
[172] Dubois D, Prade H, Representation and combination of uncertainty with belief functions and possibility measures[J].Computational Intelligence, 1998 (4): 244–264.
[173] Dubois D, Prade H, On several representations of an uncertainty body of evidence[M]. In: M.M. Gupta and E. Sanchez, Editors . Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes, North-Holland, New York, 1982: 167–181.
[174]张山鹰,潘泉,张洪才.一种新的证据推理组合规则,控制与决策[J].2000, 15 (5): 540-544.
[175]潘泉,张山鹰,程咏梅等.证据推理的鲁棒性研究[J].自动化学报, 2001, 27 (6): 479-805.
[176]李弼程,王波,魏俊等.一种有效的证据理论合成公式[J].数据采集与处理, 2002, 17 (1): 33-36.
[177]徐凌宇,张博锋,徐炜民等.D-S理论中证据损耗分析及改进方法[J].软件学报, 2004, 15 (1): 69-75.
[178] Haenni R. Are alternatives to Dempster’s rule of combination alternatives?[J]. Information Fusion. 2002, 3: 237–241.
[179] Haenni R, Lehmann N. Probabilistic argumentation systems: a new perspective on the dempster-shafer theory[J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2003, 18 (1): 93-106.
[180] Haenni R. Shedding new light on Zadeh’s criticism of Dempster’s rule of combination[C], in: FUSION’05, 8th International Conference on Information Fusion, Contribution No. C8-1,Philadelphia, USA, 2005.
[181] Birsel A, Billur B. Reliability measure assignment to sonar for robust target differentiation[J]. Pattern Recognition, 2002 (35): 1403-1419.
[182]林作拴,牟克典,韩庆.基于未知扰动的冲突证据合成方法[J].软件学报, 2004, 18 (5): 1150-1156.
[183]杨善林,朱卫东,任明仑.基于学习的证券市场专家预测意见合成研究,系统工程学报, 2004, 19 (1): 94-98.
[184]陆文星,梁昌永,丁勇.一种基于证据距离的客观权重确定方法[J],中国管理科学, 2008, 16 (6): 95-99.
[185] Murphy C K. Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts[J]. Decision support systems, 2000, 29 (1):1-9.
[186]邓勇,施文康,朱振福.一种有效处理冲突证据的组合方法[J].红外与毫米波学报, 2004, 3 (2): 27-32.
[187] Yang J B, Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 31 (1): 31-61.
[188] Jousselme A L, Grenier D, Bosse E. A new distance between two bodies of evidence [J]. Information fusion, 2001, 2 (1): 91-101.
[189] Cook W D, Golany B, KressM, etc. Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking[J]. Management Science, 2005, 51(4): 655-661.
[190]国连杰,曹裕波,刘薇,韩瑛.关于地球科学部同行评议系统评估的调研[J].中国科学基金, 2006 (6): 364-368.
[191]郭碧坚.科技管理中的同行评议:本质、作用、局限、替代[J].科技管理研究, 1995 (4): 9-11.
[192] Zuckeman H, Robert K M. Age, aging, and age structure in science [A]. In: Norman Storer Eds. the Sociology of Science[M]. Chicago University of Chicago Press,1973.
[193] Hargens, LowellL. Further evidence on filed difference in consensus from the NSF peer review studies [J]. American SociologicalReview, 1988, (53): 157-160.
[194]张光进,廖建桥.科研申请评价的特征:专业性[J].科研管理, 2007 (5): 163-169.
[195]吴述尧.同行评议方法论[M].北京:科学出版社, 1996.
[196]刘思峰,朱永达.区域经济评估指标与三角隶属函数评估模型[J].农业工程学报, 1993, 9 (2): 8-13.
[197]刘新卫.长江三角洲典型县域农业生态环境质量评价[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2005, 25 (6): 133-138.
[198]郭仪,周清雷,黄敬宝.基于TWW函数的道路交通安全灰色评价方法研究[J].中国工程科学, 2006, 8 (3): 87-90.
[199]刘俊娟,王炜,程琳.基于TWW函数的公路网灰数评价方法[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2007, 27 (7): 156-160.
[200]徐泽水.不确定多属性决策方法及应用[M].北京:清华大学出版社, 2004.
[201] Zadeh L A. Fuzzy Sets[J]. Information and Control. 1965 (8): 338-353.
[202] Bastian A. How to handle the flexibility of linguistic variables with applications[J]. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 1994, (4): 463-484.
[203] Mamdani E, Assilian S. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller[J]. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 1975, (7): 1-13.
[204] Xu Z S. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations [J]. Information Sciences, 2004, 166: 19–30.
[205] Xu Z S. Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment [J]. Information Sciences, 2004, 168: 171-184.
[206] Herrera F. and E. Herrera-Viedma, Aggregation operators for linguistic weighted information [J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1997, (18): 35-52.
[207] Zadeh L A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning[J]. Information Sciences, 1975, 8: 199-249.
[208] Delgado M, Verdegay L, Vila M. On aggregation operations of linguistic labels [J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 1993, 8: 351-370.
[209] Bonissone P P, Decker K S. Selecting uncertainty calculi and granularity and experiment in trading-off precision and complexity[A]. in: Kanal L H,Lemmer J F. (Eds). Uncertainty in Artificial inte11igence[C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986: 217-247.
[210]王欣荣.基于语言评价信息的群决策理论与方法研究[D].东北大学博士学位论文, 2003.
[211] Chen S J, Hwang, C L.Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Method and Application [M], Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
[212]周向红,不确定环境下的语言决策方法研究[D].中南大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
[213] Herrera F, Nartinez L, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2000, 8 (6): 746-752.
[214] Xu ZS. Linguistic Aggregation Operators: An Overview [M]. In: Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions: Representation, Aggregation and Models, H. Bustince, F. Herrera, J. Montero, Eds., Springer-Verlag, 2008, (220): 163-181.
[215] Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators inmulticriteria decisionmaking[J]. IEEE transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1988.
[216] Bonissone P P, Decker K S. Selecting uncertainty calculi and granularity: an experiment in tradeing-off precision and complexity[M]. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, L. H. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer, Ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, 1986: 217-247.
[217] Degani R, Bortolan G. The problem of linguistic approximation in clinical decision making[J]. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 1988. (2): 143-162
[218] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under Linguistic information [J]. Fuzzy Set s and Systems, 2000, 115 (1): 67-82.
[219] Yager R R. On weighted median aggregation. International Journal of Uncertainty [J]. Fuzziness and nowledge-Based Systems, 1994, 2: 101-113.
[220] Xu Z S. Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making[J]. Omega, 2005, 33 (3): 249-254.
[221] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators [J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1996, 79: 73-87.
[222] Herrera F, Martínez L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranularity hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision making[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybern., B, Cybern., 2001, 31 (2): 227-234.
[223] Wang J H, Hao J Y. A new version of 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words[J]. Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on. 2006, 14 (3): 435-445.
[224] Carlsson C, Fuller R. Benchmarking and linguistic importance weighted aggregations[J]. Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2000, 114 (1): 35-42.
[225] Lawry J. An alternative approach to computing with words[J]. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 2001, 9: 3-16.
[226]姜艳萍,樊治平.基于不同粒度语言判断矩阵的群决策方法[J].系统工程学报, 2006, 21 (3): 249-253.
[227] Delgado M, Verdegay J. and Vila M. Linguistic decision-making models[J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 7 (1992): 479–492.
[228] Akdag H, Truck I, Borgi A and Mellouli N. Linguistic modifiers in a symbolic framework[J]. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 2001, 9: 49–61.
[229] Herrera F, E Herrera-Viedma, L Mart??nez. A fusion approach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2000, 114: 43-58.
[230] Herrera F, Martinez L. A fusion method for multi-granularity linguistic information based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model[R]. Dept. Computer Sciences and A.I., Granada University, Technical Report# D ECSAI-990107, 200l.
[231] Wang J, Lin Y. A fuzzy multicriteria group decision making approach to select configuration items for software development[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2003, 34: 343–363.
[232] Giordano R, Passarella G etc. Integrating conflict analysis and consensus reaching in a decision support system for water resource management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2007, 84: 213–228.
[233]王坚强.一种信息不完全确定的多准则语言群决策方法[J].控制与决策, 2007, 22 (4): 394-398.
[234]龚本刚,华中生,檀大水.一种语言评价信息不完全的多属性群决策方法[J].中国管理科学, 2007, 15 (1): 88-93.
[235]卫贵武,林锐.基于二元语义多属性群决策的灰色关联分析法[J].系统工程与电子技术, 30 (9): 1686-1689.
[236] J?sang A. Subjective evidential reasoning[C]. In Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, 2002, 7: 1671-1678.
[237] J?sang A. The consensus operator for combining beliefs [J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 141 (1): 157-170.
[238]苏锦钿,郭荷清,刘淼. Web服务中的信任和声誉评估模型[J].计算机工程与应用, 2006, (21): 127-130.
[239] J?sang A, E Gray, M Kinateder. Simplification and analysis of transitive trust networks [J]. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, 2006, 4: 139-161.
[240] Oren N, Norman T J, Preece A. Subjective logic and arguing with evidence[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171: 838-854.
[241]付江柳,高承实,戴青,杨燕.基于主观逻辑的信任搜索算法[J].计算机工程, 2008, (03): 178-180, 204.
[242] J?sang A, V.A. Bondi. Legal Reasoning with Subjective Logic [J]. Artificial Reasoning and Law, 2000, 8 (4):289–315.
[243] J?sang A. Modeling trust in information security [D]. Norwegian: Dept of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1997.
[244] Cichetti, D V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross disciplinary investigation [J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1991, (14): 119-135. [ 245 ] Campanario J M. Peer review for journals as it stands today[J]. Part 1. Science Communication 1998, 19 (3): 181-211, Part 2. Science Communication 1998, 19 (4): 277-306.
[246] Starbuck W H. How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals?[J]. The Statistics of Academic Publication. Organization Science. 2005, 16 (2) 180-200.
[247]杨列勋,汪寿阳,席酉民.科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J].科学学研究, 2002, (02): 185-188.
[248] Frey B S. Publishing as prostitution? -Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success [J]. Public Choice, 2003, (116): 205-223.
[249]斯蒂芬科尔.科学的制造:在自然界与社会之间[M].林建成、王毅译,上海人民出版社,上海. 2001. 3.
[250]郑兴东,陆伟等.基金项目同行评议中专家非共识性的度量研究[J].中华医学科研管理杂志, 2005, 18 (03): 141-144.
[251] Yang J B, Xu D L. On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty [J]. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on System, Man and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 2002, 32 (3): 289-305.
[252]杨善林,朱卫东,任明伦.基于可变参数优化的相关证据合成方法研究[J].管理科学学报, 2003, 6 (5): 12-16.
[253]周寄中,杨列勋,许治.关于国家自然科学基金管理科学部资助项目后评估的研究[J].管理评论, 2007, (3): 13-19.
[254]陈晓田,黄海军. 2002年度管理科学部基金评审工作综述[J].中国科学基金, 2002 (6): 376-377.
[2]刘溜,刘彦.国家自然科学基金:一个可能的改革摹本[J].中国新闻周刊, 2004, (47): 33-35.
[3]王其冬.发展中创新:国家自然科学基金现代管理体系的构建[D].大连理工大学博士论文, 2004.
[4]王凭慧.科技项目评价方法[M].北京:科学出版社, 2003.
[5] Guy K, Clark J, Balazs K, et al.. Strategic Options for the Evaluation of the R&D Programmes of the European Union[R]. UK: STOA, 1998.
[6] Barker D, Loyd P. The evaluation of Scientific Research in the United Kingdom[A]. The Evaluation of Scientific Research: Selected Experience[R]. OECD/GD, 1997.
[7] Trochim W, Marcus S, Masse L, Richard P. Moser et al.. The evaluation of large research initiatives a participatory integrative mixed-methods approach [J]. American Journal of Evaluation, 2008, 29 (1): 8-28.
[8]陈晓剑,梁梁.系统评价方法及应用[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社, 1993.
[9]戚安邦.项目评估学[M].天津:南开大学出版社, 2006.
[10]吴述尧.同行评议方法论[M].北京:科学出版社, 1996.
[11]刘作仪,陈晓田.科学研究评价的性质作用方法及程序[J].科研管理, 2002, (2): 33-40.
[12]肖利.试论国家科技项目的分类评价、目标评价和程序规范[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2004, (3): 12-15.
[13]朱大保.改革科学基金项目评审和管理机制的探讨[J].中国科学基金, 2003, (6): 350-353.
[14]徐彩荣, NSFC同行评议研究[D].中国科学院科技政策与管理科学研究所硕士学位论文, 2005.
[15]王志强.关于完善同行评议制度的若干问题和思考[J].中国科学基金, 2002, (5): 309-313.
[16]冯锋,于晟,于振良.关于科学研究项目同行评议的一些政策性分析[J].中国科学基金, 2007, (1): 42-46.
[17]马健.科研项目遴选制度的缺陷:证据及其解释[J].科学学研究, 2007, 12: 1151-1155.
[18]王平,宋子良.同行评议制的固有缺点与局限性[J].科技管理研究, 2000, (4): 22-26.
[19]陈进寿.从人际关系谈同行评议制的改进[J].中国科学基金, 2002, (3): 182-184.
[20]谢焕瑛,国家重点实验室评估体系研究[D].大连理工大学博士学位论文, 2005.
[21] Jerome P K. Peer Review: crude and understudied, but indispensable[C]. The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, 1994. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96–7.
[22]李扉南,陈浩.将程序正义引入学术评审领域的探讨[J].科研管理, 2003, 24 (1): 34-39.
[23]姜从盛.科技项目评价专家的信用行为分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2004, (3): 34-36.
[24]江新华.论我国学术评审制度的缺陷与创新[J].科学学研究, 2005, 23 (5) : 618 - 622.
[25] Benos D, et al.. The ups and downs of peer review[J]. Advances in Physiology Education, 2007, 31(2): 145-152.
[26]龚旭.同行评议公正性的影响因素分析[J].科学学研究, 2004, (06).
[27] Relman A S. The new medical-industrial complex[J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303: 963-970.
[28] Relman A S. Dealing with conflicts of interest[J]. New England Journal of Medicine, 1984, 310: 1182-1183.
[29]赵乐静.论科学研究中的利益冲突[J].自然辩证法研究, 2001, (8): 36-40.
[30] Dennis F. Thompson.Understandingfinancial conflicts of interest [J]. New England Medicine Journal, 1993, 329: 573-576.
[31] NSFC同行评议手册调研组. NSFC同行评议手册调研报告[R]. 2002.
[32]吴彤.国家科技部基础研究评价调查报告[R]. 2001.
[33]周颖,王蒲生.同行评议中的利益冲突分析与治理对策[J].科学学研究, 2003, 21 (3): 298-302.
[34] Rumsey T S. One editor’s views on conflict of interest[J]. Journal Animal Science, 1999, 77: 2379–2383.
[35] Lloyd M E. Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication[J]. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1990, 23 (4): 539-543.
[36] Gilbert J R, Williams E S, Lundberg G D. Is there gender bias in JAMA’s peer review process?[J] Journal of the American Medical Assosiation, 1994, 272 (2): 139-142.
[37] Chubin D. Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy[M]. SUNY Press, 1990.
[38]王晶华,施红玉.从系统科学角度看学科交叉现象[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2002 (12): 5-8.
[39] Simon Wessely, Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?[J] ,The Lancet, 1998, 325(9124): 301-305.
[40] Hodgson C. Evaluation of cardiovascular grant-in-aid applications by peer-review Influence of internal and external reviewers and committees[J]. The Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 1995,11 (10): 864-868.
[41] Jayasinghe U W, Marsh H W, Bond N. Peer review in the funding of research in higher education: The Australian experience[J]. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2001, 23 (4): 343–364.
[42] Genereux D, Sen G. Suggestion for Proposal Reviews[J]. Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 2004. 85 (17): 137–144.
[43]王其冬.划分临界项目的一种多目标决策方法[A].决策科学的理论、方法与应用[C].北京:卓越出版社, 2000: 25-28.
[44]杨列勋,汪寿阳,席酉民.科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J].科学学研究, 2002, (2): 185-188.
[45]郝凤霞,刘静岩,陈忠.技术研发项目中同行专家评议产生非共识的原因分析[J].中国软科学, 2004, (12): 92-96.
[46]郑兴东等.基金项目同行评议中专家非共识性的度量研究[J].中华医学科研管理杂志, 2005, 18 (3): 141-144.
[47]姚玉鹏.对完善国家自然科学基金“3+X”同行评议方式的分析和建议[J].中国科学基金, 2007, (2): 89-91.
[48]李大鹏,茹继平,刘定燕.“3+X”评议方式的实践与认识[J].中国科学基金, 2006, (2): 110-114.
[49]夏蓓丽. APF组合分析法在哲学社会科学评价中的运用[J].情报科学, 2007, 25 (9): 1337-1342.
[50]赵波,周传敬.评价学术期刊的新文献计量指标—h指数及其发展[J].中国科技期刊研究, 2007, 18 (5) :775-777.
[51]吴勇,朱卫东.基金项目负责人科研失信行为的制度分析[J].科学学研究, 2007, (S2): 354-358.
[52] Moed H F, Burger W J M, Frankfort J G, Van Raan A F G. A comparative study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgment[J]. Scientometrics, 1985, 8 (3-4): 149-159.
[53] Upali W. Jayasinghe, Herbert W. Marsh and Nigel Bond. A multilevel cross-classified modeling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings [J], Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 2003, 8 (166): 279-300.
[54] Lutz Bornmann, Hans-Dieter Daniel. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review.Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’decisions[J]. Scientometrics, 2005, 63 (2): 297-320.
[55] Kostoff R N. Federal Research Impact Assessment: State-of-the-Art[J]. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1994, 6: 428-440.
[56] Kostoff, R N. Research Program Peer Review: Principles, Practices, Protocols[J]. Defense Technical Information Center, 1997.
[57] Kostoff R N, Miller R, Tshiteya R. Advanced technology development program review- a US Department of the Navy case study[J]. R&D Management, 2001, 31 (3): 287-298.
[58]曲立,吕晓岚.国内外科技项目评价方法比较[J].企业经济, 2005, (9): 36-38.
[59]佘诗刚.法国科技管理体制与公共机构运行模式[J].科技政策与发展战略, 2002,(8).
[60]毛振芹,程桂枝,唐五湘.部分科技发达国家科技计划项目的管理模式及启示[J].武汉工业学院学报, 2003, (3): 100—103.
[61]周浙闽.日本科技评估及其对我省科技项目管理工作的启示[J].情报检索, 2003, (3): 27-31.
[62]鲍玉昆,张金隆,李新男.国外科技评估实践及对我国的借鉴[J].软科学, 2003, (2): 22-24.
[63] Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics[J]. Journal of documen-tation, 1969, 25: 348-349.
[64] Eliezer Geisler,科学技术测度体系[M].周萍等译,北京:科学技术文献出版社, 2004.
[65]邱均平,文献计量学[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社, 1988.
[66] Gupta V K, Pangannayab N B. Carbon nanotubes: bibliometric analysis of patents[J]. World Patent Information, 2000, 22 (3): 185-189.
[67]曹学艳,胡文静.我国文献计量学进展研究[J].情报杂志, 2004, 2: 67-69.
[68]邱均平.关于“文献计量学”术语及其定义[J].图书情报知识, 1985, (3).
[69]邱均平.试论文献计量学的产生和发展[J].情报学刊, 1985, 6 (4): 22-25.
[70]邱均平.我国科技文献的时序分布和老化研究[J].图书情报工作, 1989, (4): 5-12.
[71]刘东维.洛特卡定律和普赖斯定律的验证[J].情报学报,1987, 6 (2): 91-97.
[72]方曙,李后强.洛特卡定律与分形理论[J].图书情报工作, 1989, (6): 9-14.
[73]邱均平,黄建东.我国当代图书出版数学模型的研究[J].图书情报工作, 1990, (5): 22.
[74]黄建东.试用最大熵谱分析法探索文献增长的周期[J].情报科学, 1988, 9 (3): 9-12.
[75]李正吾.科学文献增长和老化的灰色预测模型(GM)[J].情报学报, 1990, 9 (5): 342-352.
[76] Garfield E Pudovkin, AI, Istomin VS. Mapping the output of topical searches in the Web of knowledge and the case of Watson-Crick[J]. Information technology and libraries, 2003 22 (4): 183-187.
[77] Leydesdorff L. Clusters and maps of science journals based on bi-connected graphs in Journal Citation Reports[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2004, 60 (4): 371-427.
[78] Moya-Anegón F, Vargas-Quesada B, Herrero-Solana V. A new technique for building maps of large scientific domains based on the cocitation of classes and categories[J]. Scientometrics,2004, 61 (1): 129-145.
[79] Chen C. Tracing knowledge diffusion[J]. Scietometrics, 2004, 59 (2): 199-211.
[80] van Raan A F J, van Leeuwen T N. Assessment of the scientific basis of interdisciplinary, applied research: Application of bibliometric methods in Nutrition and Food Research[J]. Research Policy, 2002, 31 (4): 611-632.
[81]邱均平.信息计量学(一)第一讲信息计量学的兴起和发展[J].情报理论与实践, 2000, (1): 78-81.
[82]周辉,张光红,蔡晖,郑英姿.原创性研究成果的SCI引用分析[J].中国科学基金, 2002, (02): 85-87.
[83] Development O F E C. Frascati manual: proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development[M]. OECD, 2002.
[84] Magnus H. Daniel W. How should research performance be measured? Evidence from ranking of academic economists. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance. March , 2008.
[85]马晓光,连燕华,沈全锋等.同行评议中专家识别研究[J].研究与发展管理, 2003, 15 (3): 68-72.
[86] Catanach S R, Stout D E. Current practices in the external peer review process for promotion and tenure decisions[J]. Journal of Accounting Education, 2000, 18: 171-188.
[87]郑称德,同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其模型研究[J].科研管理,2002, 23 (2): 41-45.
[88]王平,刘爱玲.省级同行评议专家选择:理论与实现[J].科技管理研究, 1997 (4), 38-40.
[89]王成红,何杰,刘克,宋苏.关于同行评议专家定量评估指标研究的几个新结果[J].系统工程理论与实践,2004(2): 83-89.
[90]齐丽丽,司晓悦.对我国同行评议专家遴选制度的建议[J].科技成果纵横, 2008, 5: 26-28.
[91]赵黎明,徐孝涵,张卫东.选择同行评议专家的指标体系[J].科研管理, 1995, 15 (1): 17-21.
[92]何杰,王成红,刘克.对同行评议专家评议工作进行评估的思考[J].中国科学基金, 2004, (1): 47-50.
[93]赵丽莹,冯树民等.如何选择“小同行”审稿专家[J].编辑学报, 2007, 1: 75.
[94]贺林科,贾毅华.关于科学基金同行评议的一些思考[J].中国科学基金, 2005, (2): 115-116.
[95]李莹,李燕萍.我国评估评审专家评价体系的构建问题研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2005, (01): 42-45.
[96]李明德,陈奎宁.美国的科研资助和合同制[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江科学技术出版社, 1989.
[97]何香香,王家平.关于完善同行评议体系的一些思考[J].中国科学基金, 2005, (2):112-114.
[98]王国彪,彭芳瑜.国家自然科学基金同行评议结果评价方法与专家遴选因素分析[J].中国科学基金, 2008, 6: 372-376.
[99]王俭,景衍斌,陈锐,赵京.微观计量LPM模型在同行评议专家选择中的运用[J].科学学研究, 2008, 12: 1243-1247.
[100]郑称德,同行评议专家工作业绩测评及其模型研究[J].科研管理,2002, 23 (2): 41-45.
[101]陈侠,樊治平.基于语言评价矩阵的评判专家水平研究[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2007, 29 (10): 1665-1668.
[102] Cook W D, Golany B, KressM, etc. Optimal allocation of p roposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking [J]. Management Science, 2005, 51 (4): 655-661.
[103] Sun YH, Ma J, Fan ZP, Wang J. A hybrid knowledge and model approach for reviewer assignment [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2008, 34 (2): 817-824.
[104] Tian Q J, Ma J, Liu O. A hybrid knowledge and model system for R&D project selection [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2002, 23 (3): 265-271.
[105]樊治平,陈媛.科技类评审中项目分组的建模与优化[J].科研管理, 2008, 29 (6): 110-115.
[106]曲久龙.技计划项目评估理论与方法研究[D].吉林大学博士学位论文, 2006.
[107] Pol K L, Ang B W, Bai F. A Comparative Analysis of R&D Project Evaluation Methods, R&D Management, 2001, 31 (1): 63-75.
[108]刘景江等.国外R&D项目测度与评价研究述评科研管理2001,22(6): 9-14.
[109]项建国,黄荣兵,杨漫琳. R&D项目选择模型和终止模型的比较[J].科研管理, 1999, 20 (2): 99-103.
[110]席酉民,杨列勋. R&D项目评估整体模型研究[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2002, 22 (10): 105-112.
[111] Rengarajan S, Jagannathan P. Project Selection by Scoring for a Large R&D Organisation in a Developing Country[J]. R &D Management, 1997, 27 (2): 155-161.
[112]王其冬,武佩珍,胡扬.属性层次模型在国家自然科学基金项目评审中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2002, (11): 111-116.
[113]王其冬,武佩珍,程建刚等.层次分析法在国家自然科学基金项目评审中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2001, (7): 119-124.
[114]陈学中,盛昭瀚,李文喜.科研项目选择的0-1目标规划模型[J].科研管理, 2005, 26 (4): 117-121.
[115]陈学中,李光红.投资项目选择的目标规划模型及其应用[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2001 (2): 102-105.
[116]黄本笑,彭玉梅.运用网络分析法选择R-D项目[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2003 (2): 5-7.
[117]张坚,黄现.陶树人.基于遗传算法的R&D项目实物期权评价模[J].科研管理, 2004, 25 (2): 44-48.
[118]马欣.科技项目投资的实物期权分析框架[J].同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, (6): 817-821.
[119] Wang Juite, Hwang W L. A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model[J]. Omega, 2007, 35: 247-257.
[120]肖健华,吴今培,陈世权.一种应用聚类分析的科研立项评审数据处理方法[J].科研管理, 2000, 21 (3): 82-87.
[121]樊宏,陈世权.基于DEA算法的科研评审排序方法与应用[J].科研管理, 2002, 23 (4) : 65-69.
[122] Eilat H, Golany B, Shtub A. Constructing and evaluating balanced portfolios of R&D projects with interactions: A DEA based methodology, European Journal of Operational Research, 2006, 172 (3): 1018-1039.
[123] Yong Hak Chun. Sequential Decisions Under Uncertainty in the R&D Project Selection Problem[J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 1994, 41 (4): 404-413
[124]刘克,王成红,何杰,宋苏.国家自然科学基金面上项目通讯评议结果的公平化处理[J].中国科学基金, 2003, (4): 234-237
[125] Hochbaum DS, Levin A. Methodologies and algorithms for group-rankings decision[J]. Management Science, 2006, 52 (9): 1394-1408.
[126]肖人毅,王长锐.科研基金项目立项评估方法的研究与改进[J].系统工程理论与实践2004, 12(5): 66-71.
[127]王雄,吴庆田.基于模糊语言的科研基金项目立项评估研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2007, (9): 61-63.
[128]肖健华,吴今培.基于粗糙集理论的科研立项总结评价方法[J].科研管理, 2001, 22(05): 8-12.
[129]周春喜.科研项目立项的多层次灰色综合评审[J].科技进步与对策, 2006, (10): 136-139.
[130]李银朋,刘广毅.基于灰色综合评价方法的科技项目选择[J].大庆石油学院学报, 2008, 32 (3): 89-92.
[131]陈世权,孙有发,李秀平等.模糊排序专家系统及其在科研管理中的应用[J].模糊系统与数学, 2000, 14 (1): 94-99.
[132]杨世荣.模糊综合评判在科研项目评审中的应用[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2001, (5): 30-32.
[133] Carlsson Christer, Fullér Robert, Markku Heikkil?, Péter Majlender. A fuzzy approach to R&D project portfolio selection[J].International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2007, 44(2): 93-105.
[134]潘杰义,刘西林.科研项目评价指标体系及模糊优选决策模型研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理, 2004, 25(1): 9-11.
[135]肖健华,吴今培,陈世权等.基金项目立项评审系统的设计[J].系统工程, 1999, 17 (5): 71-76.
[136]陈致宇,陈世权,吴今培.科研项目立项评审智能管理系统[J].科研管理, 2002, 23 (4): 132–138.
[137]孙宏元,黄德云,朱东华.科技评价的智能信息处理方法研究[J].预测, 2002, (4): 28-29, 59.
[138]李智,李敏强.基金项目评审管理中智能交互式文档检索[J].研究与发展管理, 2005, 17 (3): 106-110.
[139]刘作仪.评价政府资助的基础研究:理论基础与方法选择[D].武汉大学博士论文,2002.
[140]吴述尧.再论同行评议的功能[J].中国科学基金, 1998, 3 (19): 215-219. [ 141 ] Porter R. What do grant reviewers really want, anyway?[J]. Journal of Research Administration. 2005, 36 (2): 34-37.
[142]国连杰,曹裕波,刘薇,韩瑛.关于地球科学部同行评议系统评估的调研[J].中国科学基金, 2006, (06): 364-368.
[143] National Science Foundation. (2004). NSB-04-43: Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s merit review process, Fiscal Year 2003. Retrieved 7 July 2004. from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2004/MRreport_2003_final.pdf.
[144] Schmidt R L, Freeland J R. Recent progress in modeling R&D project-selection progresses [J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 1992, 39 (2): 189-201.
[145] Moon, W. M. Integration of geophysical and geological data using evidential belief function [J]. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, 1990 (2): 711 -720
[146] Otman B, Y Xiaohong. Engine fault diagnosis based on multi-sensor information fusion using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory [J]. Information Fusion, 2007, 8 (4): 379-386.
[147]郭代飞,杨义先,胡正名.基于大规模网络的自适应入侵响应模型研究[J].北京邮电大学学报, 2004, 27 (1): 79-83.
[148]诸葛建伟,王大为等.基于D-S证据理论的网络异常检测方法[J].软件学报, 2006, 17 (3): 463-471.
[149]孙怀江,胡钟山,杨静宇,基于证据理论的多分类器融合方法研究[J],计算机学报,2001, 3: 231-235.
[150] Yang J B, Singh M G. An evidential reasoning approach for multiple-Attribute decision making with uncertainty[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1994, 24 (1): 1-18.
[151]杨春、李怀祖,一个证据推理模型及其在专家意见综合中的应用[J].系统工程理论与实践,2001 (4):43-48.
[152] Xu D L, Yang J B, Wang Y M. The evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty[J]. European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2006) 1914-1943.
[153] Wang Y M, Yang J B et al. The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees[J]. European Journal of Operational Research 2006 (175) 35-66.
[154] Guo M, Yang J B et al. Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research[J]. 2007, 182 (3): 1294-1312.
[155] Beynon M. DS/AHP method: A Mathematical Analysis, Including an Understanding of Uncertainty[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2002, 140 (1), 149-165.
[156] Beynon M. A Method of Aggregation in DS/AHP for Group Decision-Making with the Non-Equivalent Importance of Individuals in the Group [J]. Computes & Operations Research,2005b, 32, 1881-1896.
[157] Beynon M. The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making[J]. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2006, 15, 21-42.
[158] Hua Z S,Gong B G, Xu X Y. A DS-AHP approach for multi-attribute decision making problem with incomplete information[J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2008, 34 (3): 2221-2227.
[159]张全,樊治平,孟军. D-S理论在不确定性多属性决策中的应用[J].系统工程与电子技术, 1999, 21 (11): 7-10.
[160]杨萍,刘卫东.基于证据理论的群决策层次评价方法研究[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2002, 24 (2): 42-44.
[161]王坚强,何波.基于证据推理的信息不完全确定的MCDM方法[J].系统工程与电子技术, 2005, 27 (4): 659-661.
[162] Dempster A P. Upper and lower probabiIities induced by amulti-valued mapping[J]. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967, 38: 325-339.
[163] Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence[M]. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1976.
[164] Zadeh L A.Review of books: A mathematical theory of evidence[J]. AI Magazine, 1984, 5(3): 81-83.
[165] Smets P. The combination of evidence in the Transferable Be1ief Model[J]. IEEE Trans.on Patem Analysis and Machine IntelIigence, 1990, 12 (5): 447-458.
[166] Smets P. Belief functions: the disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized Bayesian theorem[J]. International Journal of Approximate reasoning, 1993 (9):1-35.
[167] Smets P. Belief functions on real numbers[J]. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 2005, 40 (3): 181–223.
[168] Yager R.R., On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules, Information Sciences, 1987 (41): 93–138.
[169] Takahiko. H, Decision rule for pattern classification by integrating interval feature values[J].Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence,1998,20 (4): 440-447.
[170]孙全,叶秀清,顾伟康.一种新的基于证据理论的合成公式[J].电子学报, 2000, 28 (8): 117-119.
[171] Lefevre E, Colot O. Vannooreneverghe P. Belief function combination and conflict management[J]. Information Fusion, 2002, 3 (3): 149-162.
[172] Dubois D, Prade H, Representation and combination of uncertainty with belief functions and possibility measures[J].Computational Intelligence, 1998 (4): 244–264.
[173] Dubois D, Prade H, On several representations of an uncertainty body of evidence[M]. In: M.M. Gupta and E. Sanchez, Editors . Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes, North-Holland, New York, 1982: 167–181.
[174]张山鹰,潘泉,张洪才.一种新的证据推理组合规则,控制与决策[J].2000, 15 (5): 540-544.
[175]潘泉,张山鹰,程咏梅等.证据推理的鲁棒性研究[J].自动化学报, 2001, 27 (6): 479-805.
[176]李弼程,王波,魏俊等.一种有效的证据理论合成公式[J].数据采集与处理, 2002, 17 (1): 33-36.
[177]徐凌宇,张博锋,徐炜民等.D-S理论中证据损耗分析及改进方法[J].软件学报, 2004, 15 (1): 69-75.
[178] Haenni R. Are alternatives to Dempster’s rule of combination alternatives?[J]. Information Fusion. 2002, 3: 237–241.
[179] Haenni R, Lehmann N. Probabilistic argumentation systems: a new perspective on the dempster-shafer theory[J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems. 2003, 18 (1): 93-106.
[180] Haenni R. Shedding new light on Zadeh’s criticism of Dempster’s rule of combination[C], in: FUSION’05, 8th International Conference on Information Fusion, Contribution No. C8-1,Philadelphia, USA, 2005.
[181] Birsel A, Billur B. Reliability measure assignment to sonar for robust target differentiation[J]. Pattern Recognition, 2002 (35): 1403-1419.
[182]林作拴,牟克典,韩庆.基于未知扰动的冲突证据合成方法[J].软件学报, 2004, 18 (5): 1150-1156.
[183]杨善林,朱卫东,任明仑.基于学习的证券市场专家预测意见合成研究,系统工程学报, 2004, 19 (1): 94-98.
[184]陆文星,梁昌永,丁勇.一种基于证据距离的客观权重确定方法[J],中国管理科学, 2008, 16 (6): 95-99.
[185] Murphy C K. Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts[J]. Decision support systems, 2000, 29 (1):1-9.
[186]邓勇,施文康,朱振福.一种有效处理冲突证据的组合方法[J].红外与毫米波学报, 2004, 3 (2): 27-32.
[187] Yang J B, Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research, 2001, 31 (1): 31-61.
[188] Jousselme A L, Grenier D, Bosse E. A new distance between two bodies of evidence [J]. Information fusion, 2001, 2 (1): 91-101.
[189] Cook W D, Golany B, KressM, etc. Optimal allocation of proposals to reviewers to facilitate effective ranking[J]. Management Science, 2005, 51(4): 655-661.
[190]国连杰,曹裕波,刘薇,韩瑛.关于地球科学部同行评议系统评估的调研[J].中国科学基金, 2006 (6): 364-368.
[191]郭碧坚.科技管理中的同行评议:本质、作用、局限、替代[J].科技管理研究, 1995 (4): 9-11.
[192] Zuckeman H, Robert K M. Age, aging, and age structure in science [A]. In: Norman Storer Eds. the Sociology of Science[M]. Chicago University of Chicago Press,1973.
[193] Hargens, LowellL. Further evidence on filed difference in consensus from the NSF peer review studies [J]. American SociologicalReview, 1988, (53): 157-160.
[194]张光进,廖建桥.科研申请评价的特征:专业性[J].科研管理, 2007 (5): 163-169.
[195]吴述尧.同行评议方法论[M].北京:科学出版社, 1996.
[196]刘思峰,朱永达.区域经济评估指标与三角隶属函数评估模型[J].农业工程学报, 1993, 9 (2): 8-13.
[197]刘新卫.长江三角洲典型县域农业生态环境质量评价[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2005, 25 (6): 133-138.
[198]郭仪,周清雷,黄敬宝.基于TWW函数的道路交通安全灰色评价方法研究[J].中国工程科学, 2006, 8 (3): 87-90.
[199]刘俊娟,王炜,程琳.基于TWW函数的公路网灰数评价方法[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2007, 27 (7): 156-160.
[200]徐泽水.不确定多属性决策方法及应用[M].北京:清华大学出版社, 2004.
[201] Zadeh L A. Fuzzy Sets[J]. Information and Control. 1965 (8): 338-353.
[202] Bastian A. How to handle the flexibility of linguistic variables with applications[J]. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 1994, (4): 463-484.
[203] Mamdani E, Assilian S. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller[J]. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 1975, (7): 1-13.
[204] Xu Z S. A method based on linguistic aggregation operators for group decision making with linguistic preference relations [J]. Information Sciences, 2004, 166: 19–30.
[205] Xu Z S. Uncertain linguistic aggregation operators based approach to multiple attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment [J]. Information Sciences, 2004, 168: 171-184.
[206] Herrera F. and E. Herrera-Viedma, Aggregation operators for linguistic weighted information [J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1997, (18): 35-52.
[207] Zadeh L A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning[J]. Information Sciences, 1975, 8: 199-249.
[208] Delgado M, Verdegay L, Vila M. On aggregation operations of linguistic labels [J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 1993, 8: 351-370.
[209] Bonissone P P, Decker K S. Selecting uncertainty calculi and granularity and experiment in trading-off precision and complexity[A]. in: Kanal L H,Lemmer J F. (Eds). Uncertainty in Artificial inte11igence[C]. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986: 217-247.
[210]王欣荣.基于语言评价信息的群决策理论与方法研究[D].东北大学博士学位论文, 2003.
[211] Chen S J, Hwang, C L.Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Method and Application [M], Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.
[212]周向红,不确定环境下的语言决策方法研究[D].中南大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
[213] Herrera F, Nartinez L, A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words[J]. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2000, 8 (6): 746-752.
[214] Xu ZS. Linguistic Aggregation Operators: An Overview [M]. In: Fuzzy Sets and Their Extensions: Representation, Aggregation and Models, H. Bustince, F. Herrera, J. Montero, Eds., Springer-Verlag, 2008, (220): 163-181.
[215] Yager R R. On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators inmulticriteria decisionmaking[J]. IEEE transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1988.
[216] Bonissone P P, Decker K S. Selecting uncertainty calculi and granularity: an experiment in tradeing-off precision and complexity[M]. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, L. H. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer, Ed. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, 1986: 217-247.
[217] Degani R, Bortolan G. The problem of linguistic approximation in clinical decision making[J]. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 1988. (2): 143-162
[218] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under Linguistic information [J]. Fuzzy Set s and Systems, 2000, 115 (1): 67-82.
[219] Yager R R. On weighted median aggregation. International Journal of Uncertainty [J]. Fuzziness and nowledge-Based Systems, 1994, 2: 101-113.
[220] Xu Z S. Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making[J]. Omega, 2005, 33 (3): 249-254.
[221] Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay J L. Direct approach processes in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators [J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1996, 79: 73-87.
[222] Herrera F, Martínez L. A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranularity hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision making[J]. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, Cybern., B, Cybern., 2001, 31 (2): 227-234.
[223] Wang J H, Hao J Y. A new version of 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words[J]. Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on. 2006, 14 (3): 435-445.
[224] Carlsson C, Fuller R. Benchmarking and linguistic importance weighted aggregations[J]. Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2000, 114 (1): 35-42.
[225] Lawry J. An alternative approach to computing with words[J]. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 2001, 9: 3-16.
[226]姜艳萍,樊治平.基于不同粒度语言判断矩阵的群决策方法[J].系统工程学报, 2006, 21 (3): 249-253.
[227] Delgado M, Verdegay J. and Vila M. Linguistic decision-making models[J]. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 7 (1992): 479–492.
[228] Akdag H, Truck I, Borgi A and Mellouli N. Linguistic modifiers in a symbolic framework[J]. International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. 2001, 9: 49–61.
[229] Herrera F, E Herrera-Viedma, L Mart??nez. A fusion approach for managing multi-granularity linguistic term sets in decision making[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2000, 114: 43-58.
[230] Herrera F, Martinez L. A fusion method for multi-granularity linguistic information based on the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model[R]. Dept. Computer Sciences and A.I., Granada University, Technical Report# D ECSAI-990107, 200l.
[231] Wang J, Lin Y. A fuzzy multicriteria group decision making approach to select configuration items for software development[J]. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2003, 34: 343–363.
[232] Giordano R, Passarella G etc. Integrating conflict analysis and consensus reaching in a decision support system for water resource management[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2007, 84: 213–228.
[233]王坚强.一种信息不完全确定的多准则语言群决策方法[J].控制与决策, 2007, 22 (4): 394-398.
[234]龚本刚,华中生,檀大水.一种语言评价信息不完全的多属性群决策方法[J].中国管理科学, 2007, 15 (1): 88-93.
[235]卫贵武,林锐.基于二元语义多属性群决策的灰色关联分析法[J].系统工程与电子技术, 30 (9): 1686-1689.
[236] J?sang A. Subjective evidential reasoning[C]. In Proc. of the 9th Int. Conf. on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, 2002, 7: 1671-1678.
[237] J?sang A. The consensus operator for combining beliefs [J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2002, 141 (1): 157-170.
[238]苏锦钿,郭荷清,刘淼. Web服务中的信任和声誉评估模型[J].计算机工程与应用, 2006, (21): 127-130.
[239] J?sang A, E Gray, M Kinateder. Simplification and analysis of transitive trust networks [J]. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, 2006, 4: 139-161.
[240] Oren N, Norman T J, Preece A. Subjective logic and arguing with evidence[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 2007, 171: 838-854.
[241]付江柳,高承实,戴青,杨燕.基于主观逻辑的信任搜索算法[J].计算机工程, 2008, (03): 178-180, 204.
[242] J?sang A, V.A. Bondi. Legal Reasoning with Subjective Logic [J]. Artificial Reasoning and Law, 2000, 8 (4):289–315.
[243] J?sang A. Modeling trust in information security [D]. Norwegian: Dept of Computer and Information Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1997.
[244] Cichetti, D V. The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross disciplinary investigation [J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1991, (14): 119-135. [ 245 ] Campanario J M. Peer review for journals as it stands today[J]. Part 1. Science Communication 1998, 19 (3): 181-211, Part 2. Science Communication 1998, 19 (4): 277-306.
[246] Starbuck W H. How Much Better Are the Most-Prestigious Journals?[J]. The Statistics of Academic Publication. Organization Science. 2005, 16 (2) 180-200.
[247]杨列勋,汪寿阳,席酉民.科学基金遴选中非共识研究项目的评估研究[J].科学学研究, 2002, (02): 185-188.
[248] Frey B S. Publishing as prostitution? -Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success [J]. Public Choice, 2003, (116): 205-223.
[249]斯蒂芬科尔.科学的制造:在自然界与社会之间[M].林建成、王毅译,上海人民出版社,上海. 2001. 3.
[250]郑兴东,陆伟等.基金项目同行评议中专家非共识性的度量研究[J].中华医学科研管理杂志, 2005, 18 (03): 141-144.
[251] Yang J B, Xu D L. On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty [J]. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions on System, Man and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 2002, 32 (3): 289-305.
[252]杨善林,朱卫东,任明伦.基于可变参数优化的相关证据合成方法研究[J].管理科学学报, 2003, 6 (5): 12-16.
[253]周寄中,杨列勋,许治.关于国家自然科学基金管理科学部资助项目后评估的研究[J].管理评论, 2007, (3): 13-19.
[254]陈晓田,黄海军. 2002年度管理科学部基金评审工作综述[J].中国科学基金, 2002 (6): 376-377.