IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i1d10.1007_s11192-021-04201-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of scientific research projects on the basis of evidential reasoning approach under the perspective of expert reliability

Author

Listed:
  • Weidong Zhu

    (Hefei University of Technology)

  • Shaorong Li

    (Hefei University of Technology)

  • Hongtao Zhang

    (Zhejiang A&F University)

  • Tianjiao Zhang

    (Hefei University of Technology)

  • Zhimin Li

    (Hefei University of Technology)

Abstract

The evaluation of scientific research projects is a multi-expert decision-making problem under incomplete information environment. Whether evaluation results are reasonable or not depends on the expression of experts’ opinions, the reliability of experts and the aggregation method of experts’ opinions. From the perspective of expert reliability, this paper proposes a data-driven evidential reasoning method based on two-dimensional frames of discernment. In the proposed method, project evaluation information and experts’ characteristics information are used as two-dimensional evidence to represent decision information and decision quality information respectively, and belief distribution is used to express these two kinds of information. Experts’ characteristics information is used to measure the reliability of experts to modify project evaluation information given by experts. The discounted project evaluation information is aggregated by using evidential reasoning analysis algorithm to complete the evaluation of scientific research projects. In addition, a learning optimisation model is constructed to determine the relevant parameter values of the proposed method in a data-driven manner using historical evaluation data of projects. The empirical analysis of the National Nature Science Foundation of China verifies the validity and applicability of the proposed method.

Suggested Citation

  • Weidong Zhu & Shaorong Li & Hongtao Zhang & Tianjiao Zhang & Zhimin Li, 2022. "Evaluation of scientific research projects on the basis of evidential reasoning approach under the perspective of expert reliability," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 275-298, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04201-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04201-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04201-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04201-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sen Liu & Wei Yu & Ling Liu & Yanan Hu, 2019. "Variable weights theory and its application to multi-attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers on determining decision maker’s weights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    3. Wen-Tao Guo & Van-Nam Huynh & Songsak Sriboonchitta, 2017. "A proportional linguistic distribution based model for multiple attribute decision making under linguistic uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 256(2), pages 305-328, September.
    4. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Simon, C. & Weber, P. & Evsukoff, A., 2008. "Bayesian networks inference algorithm to implement Dempster Shafer theory in reliability analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 93(7), pages 950-963.
    7. 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.
    8. Jun Xu & Jiu-Ying Dong & Shu-Ping Wan & De-Yan Yang & Yi-Feng Zeng, 2019. "A Heterogeneous Multiattribute Group Decision-Making Method Based on Intuitionistic Triangular Fuzzy Information," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-18, August.
    9. Minghua Shi & Yuewen Xiao & Qing Wan, 2019. "Extended Heronian Mean Based on Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Information for Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-19, August.
    10. Wei-dong Zhu & Fang Liu & Yu-wang Chen & Jian-bo Yang & Dong-ling Xu & Dong-peng Wang, 2015. "Research project evaluation and selection: an evidential reasoning rule-based method for aggregating peer review information with reliabilities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1469-1490, December.
    11. 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.
    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. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt & Anna Strauss, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    3. J-B Yang & D-L Xu & X Xie & A K Maddulapalli, 2011. "Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritizing voices of customer," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1638-1654, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Elena Veretennik & Maria Yudkevich, 2023. "Inconsistent quality signals: evidence from the regional journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3675-3701, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Zhou, Zhi-Jie & Hu, Chang-Hua & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chen, Mao-Yin & Zhou, Dong-Hua, 2010. "A model for real-time failure prognosis based on hidden Markov model and belief rule base," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 269-283, November.
    9. 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).
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Jun Liu & Jian-Bo Yang & Da Ruan & Luis Martinez & Jin Wang, 2008. "Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 143-168, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Randa Alsabahi, 2022. "English Medium Publications: Opening or Closing Doors to Authors with Non-English Language Backgrounds," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 15(10), pages 1-18, October.
    19. Yuetong Chen & Hao Wang & Baolong Zhang & Wei Zhang, 2022. "A method of measuring the article discriminative capacity and its distribution," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3317-3341, June.
    20. Qianjin Zong & Yafen Xie & Jiechun Liang, 2020. "Does open peer review improve citation count? Evidence from a propensity score matching analysis of PeerJ," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 607-623, October.

    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:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04201-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.