IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i14p6205-d1439218.html

Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines

Author

Listed:
  • Guixian Qu

    (Research Institute of Aero-Engine, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China
    Aero-Engine System Collaborative Design Center, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China
    Zhongfa Aviation Institute of Beihang University, Hangzhou 311115, China
    Tianmushan Laboratory, Hangzhou 310023, China)

  • Xu Yang

    (Research Institute of Aero-Engine, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China
    Aero-Engine System Collaborative Design Center, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China)

  • Qiyu Yuan

    (Research Institute of Aero-Engine, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China
    Aero-Engine System Collaborative Design Center, Beihang University, Beijing 102206, China
    Tianmushan Laboratory, Hangzhou 310023, China)

  • Zhenxin Liu

    (Zhongfa Aviation Institute of Beihang University, Hangzhou 311115, China
    Tianmushan Laboratory, Hangzhou 310023, China)

  • Yang Si

    (Logistics School, Beijing Wuzi University, Beijing 710072, China)

Abstract

The evaluation and management of frontier fundamental research projects for future advanced aircraft engines are challenging due to the need to balance assessing the innovative potential and technical risks with considering their long-term effects and inherent uncertainties. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation indicator system for evaluating frontier fundamental research projects for future advanced aircraft engines, integrating the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation (FCE) to balance innovative potential with technical risks. The AHP is used to determine weights for the evaluation indicator system based on a survey of technical experts. By incorporating expert ratings and weighted criteria, the FCE method synthesizes comprehensive evaluations and effectively avoids traditional scoring biases and simplistic averaging methods. A case study on a major project is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method in highlighting the significant achievements and potential for innovation gaps. The results show that the AHP-FCE method proves robust in identifying complex, prospective research, providing a strategic tool for policymakers to prioritize impactful aircraft engine research and ensuring investment in projects with significant breakthrough potential.

Suggested Citation

  • Guixian Qu & Xu Yang & Qiyu Yuan & Zhenxin Liu & Yang Si, 2024. "Research on Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Method for Frontier Fundamental Research Project for Future Aircraft Engines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-23, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:14:p:6205-:d:1439218
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/14/6205/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/14/6205/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    2. AlMalki, Hameeda A. & Durugbo, Christopher M., 2023. "Evaluating critical institutional factors of Industry 4.0 for education reform," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    4. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    5. Huang, Chi-Cheng & Chu, Pin-Yu & Chiang, Yu-Hsiu, 2008. "A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    6. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fang Liu & Wei-dong Zhu & Yu-wang Chen & Dong-ling Xu & Jian-bo Yang, 2017. "Evaluation, ranking and selection of R&D projects by multiple experts: an evidential reasoning rule based approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1501-1519, June.
    2. Xinxin Liu & Xiaosheng Wang & Haiying Guo & Xiaojie An, 2021. "Benefit Allocation in Shared Water-Saving Management Contract Projects Based on Modified Expected Shapley Value," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(1), pages 39-62, January.
    3. Stephen A Gallo & Karen B Schmaling, 2022. "Peer review: Risk and risk tolerance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-20, August.
    4. Álvarez-García, Elena & García-Costa, Daniel & Squazzoni, Flaminio & Malički, Mario & Mehmani, Bahar & Grimaldo, Francisco, 2026. "Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1).
    5. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    6. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664.
    7. Daniel E Acuna & Misha Teplitskiy & James A Evans & Konrad Kording, 2022. "Author-suggested reviewers rate manuscripts much more favorably: A cross-sectional analysis of the neuroscience section of PLOS ONE," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Rodríguez Sánchez, Isabel & Makkonen, Teemu & Williams, Allan M., 2019. "Peer review assessment of originality in tourism journals: critical perspective of key gatekeepers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-11.
    9. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    10. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    11. Meyer, Matthias & Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. & Duscher, Irina & Just, Alexander, 2018. "Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 24-46.
    12. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Seeber, Marco & Alon, Ilan & Pina, David G. & Piro, Fredrik Niclas & Seeber, Michele, 2022. "Predictors of applying for and winning an ERC Proof-of-Concept grant: An automated machine learning model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    14. Feliciani, Thomas & Morreau, Michael & Luo, Junwen & Lucas, Pablo & Shankar, Kalpana, 2022. "Designing grant-review panels for better funding decisions: Lessons from an empirically calibrated simulation model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    15. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna, 2017. "What do Editors Maximize? Evidence from Four Leading Economics Journals," NBER Working Papers 23282, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2016. "Why the referees’ reports I receive as an editor are so much better than the reports I receive as an author?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 967-986, March.
    17. Dietmar Wolfram & Peiling Wang & Adam Hembree & Hyoungjoo Park, 2020. "Open peer review: promoting transparency in open science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1033-1051, November.
    18. Andrada Elena Urda-Cîmpean & Sorana D. Bolboacă & Andrei Achimaş-Cadariu & Tudor Cătălin Drugan, 2016. "Knowledge Production in Two Types of Medical PhD Routes—What’s to Gain?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-16, June.
    19. Oleksiyenko, Anatoly V., 2023. "Geopolitical agendas and internationalization of post-soviet higher education: Discursive dilemmas in the realm of the prestige economy," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    20. Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. A. García & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2018. "Editorial decisions with informed and uninformed reviewers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(1), pages 25-43, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:14:p:6205-:d:1439218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.