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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]