农业图书情报学刊 ›› 2017, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (4): 20-23.doi: 10.13998/j.cnki.issn1002-1248.2017.04.004

• 信息论坛 • 上一篇    下一篇

科技评价常用方法比较及农业科研机构评价方法建议

张会芳   

  1. 河南省农业科学院农业经济与信息研究所,河南 郑州 450002
  • 收稿日期:2016-08-16 出版日期:2017-04-05 发布日期:2017-04-11
  • 作者简介:张会芳(1977-),女,博士,助理研究员,河南省农业科学院,研究方向:农业科技信息研究与服务。
  • 基金资助:
    河南省农业科学院自主创新专项基金项目(项目编号:2016ZC58); 河南省软科学研究计划项目(项目编号:162400410300)

Comparison of Common Methods for Science and Technology Evaluation and Suggestions on Evaluation Methods of Agricultural Research Institutions

ZHANG Huifang   

  1. Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information, Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Henan Zhengzhou 450002, China
  • Received:2016-08-16 Online:2017-04-05 Published:2017-04-11

摘要: 科研机构是科技发展和创新的重要承担主体,科技绩效管理是落实国家创新驱动战略要求的重要保障,建立科学、合理、可作操性强的科技绩效评价体系是绩效评价的基础。文章探讨了科研绩效评价原则,将常用的评价方法,如同行评议法、德尔菲法和文献计量法等的优点与不足、适用范围等进行了梳理和评述,并针对农业科研机构的特点,给出了科技评价方法建议,以期为农业科研机构绩效管理提供参考。

关键词: 农业科研机构, 科技评价, 评价原则, 层次分析法, 德尔菲法

Abstract: Scientific research institutions are important subjects for the development and innovation of science and technology, whose performance management is an important guarantee to carry out the national innovation-driven strategy.Establishing scientific, reasonable and feasible evaluation system for science and technology is the basis of performance evaluation. The principle of the performance evaluation of scientific research was discussed, the advantages, disadvantages and scope of commonly used evaluation methods, such as peer review method, Delphi method were discussed. In order to provide reference for the performance management of agricultural scientific research institutions, scientific evaluation method was suggested according to the characteristics of agricultural research institutions.

Key words: agricultural research institution

中图分类号: 

  • C931

引用本文

张会芳. 科技评价常用方法比较及农业科研机构评价方法建议[J]. 农业图书情报学刊, 2017, 29(4): 20-23.

ZHANG Huifang. Comparison of Common Methods for Science and Technology Evaluation and Suggestions on Evaluation Methods of Agricultural Research Institutions[J]. , 2017, 29(4): 20-23.