bet365 Play online games Scientific research funding usually uses public funds，Research related to human survival and development、major issues of national social progress，Therefore, the decision -making process of scientific research funding or the review of funding applications is important。Funding institutions and academic circles need to continuously explore and improve the scientific methods of scientific research project review，Getting off for scientific research。

The official website of the Institute of American Biological Sciences Recently posted a post，Introduced Michael Pearce、Professor Carole J. Lee, a professor of the Department of Philosophy of the University of Washington University, published an article "A New Method of Funding for Research Integrity and Peace Evaluation" published in "Research Integrity and Peace Evaluation"，Post ranking。This article puts forward a improvement plan for the issue of the research plan rating in scientific research。Article display，For the Bet365 app download funder，Collect rating and ranking data，and use the Mallows-Binomial Model to generate a comprehensive score，There are many advantages compared to the method of relying on rating alone。

According to researchers，When reviewing the scientific research project plan，Funding decision -making is usually based on the rating feedback of reviewers and the summary of these statistical data as the main basis，These data represent the quality assessment of the reviewer for the research plan。But，The approach to rely on rating may not be appropriate，This may bring obstacles to the reasonable establishment of funding priority。Especially in two cases that need to distinguish similar research plans and the quality of all projects are very prominent，Some tiny disadvantages may determine whether the project is successful or rejected。other，The use of rating rules sometimes allows reviewers to reluctantly deduct points according to a series of identified but insignificant defects，Although the reviewers also realize that this application has great potential in general。If you collect Top-K preferences、Paid Comparisons such as Paired Comparisons，and incorporate it into bet365 Play online games the evaluation and rating analysis，It is expected to alleviate the problems of funding preferences for research plans under the current practice。

To solve the above problems，Researchers suggest to increase rankings in traditional rating methods，and use the innovative method of the Mallos dual -e -terms model，This method can generate a comprehensive score and corresponding priority for the research plan。The former of the former research plan is comparison，The latter represents local comparison。Researchers think，Compared with the method of only rating，There are many benefits in the new method。Among them, "Confidential Metrics is provided with priority list sorting，Make a higher degree of distinction between the research plan of similar rating，and the situation of lack of consistency on abnormal values ​​and review opinions provides higher stability "。

From the perspective of psychology，Sorting and scoring is two different evaluation tasks。Some studies have been discovered before，When evaluating the two objects at a dimension，Evaluations may give higher evaluations to the lower score objects。This is due，Therefore, it does not involve the direct comparison required for bet365 best casino games sorting tasks。The same person may make a seemingly different judgment on the same object，The scoring results may be different from the level of epistemology、Personal preference、The impact of the appraiser's grasp of the loose scale。Low reliability between appraisers (Low Inter -later Reliability) is a long-term worry。other，Even if the characteristics of the characteristics of the appraiser are ignored，The guidance scheme of the rating system often has a lot of fuzzyness，There is a variety of interpretation space for the results。For example，In the scoring guidance of the State Health Research Institute (NIH),，The overall impact rating is 5，If this project is funded, it will be "made of highly important contributions to this field，But there are disadvantages to lower its overall impact "，or "Maybe to make a medium and important contribution to this field，There are some disadvantages or not recognized the disadvantages "。Therefore，A single rating obtained by a research plan does not necessarily be completely clear compared to its expected value expectations，When the rating of other appraisers is merged、When President's Film is the basis for Bet365 lotto review judging the priority of funding the priority，It may become more mixed。

Researchers said，until recently，Analysis of rating and ranking at the same time can be received more attention。Considering that evaluation rating and comparative ranking are different decisions，It is important to obtain these two information about a research plan from the same judge。Collecting rating information reflects the performance of a single research plan relative to the funding target at the level of scientific research，and the gap between the research plan can be carried out in a global comparison (for example, between different review teams)，Collecting the ranking information allows the quality of the research plan to directly compare the quality of the research plan in a local sense (such as within the review team)。Mastering these two types of data can more clearly distinguish the priority of funding the research plan，You can also evaluate the overall scientific research level of the submitted plan。

According to researchers，Many research funding institutions will collect rating data in practice，But the practice of collecting ranking data is not unusual。Statistics of ranking data are more complicated and delicate，Fitting statistical bet365 Play online games ranking model may also face higher calculation costs，The feasibility problem of strategy must be considered。They describe a practical method that integrates the two，and through case studies, it shows the value of supporting funding decision -making in practical applications。The specific method is，Collect rating and ranking data from the members of the review team，Statistically modeling this information to create an orderly、Research plan provided by two data sources to fund the priority list。In this process，Funders can consider the scores given by the reviewers and their opinions on competition between the research plan。Including the ranking can make the supporters more accurately refine the viewers' views into useful outputs，to make the most wise decision。

　(Chen Yutong/Compilation)