Assessment opinions on the first Fund application

This year applied for the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong province, the Youth Fund project, the overall opinion for CBB, the assessment of the expert opinion is worthy of my well-remembered and corrected, thanks to 3 review experts!

General Comments:

First expert opinion: C-disagree with funding

This project for XXX research, research XXX algorithm, XXX algorithm parallelization theory and method, the final establishment of XXX algorithm system. The algorithm is not innovative, the application is not very important, the author Foundation is weak, the proposal does not support.

Note: A 3 SCI paper (2 related to the subject of the application), a Chinese core paper 4, are related to the application of the subject, I do not know why a "weak foundation" views.

Second expert opinion: B-Revised funding

Project selection is forward-looking, the research program is practical, the researcher has the relevant research background of XXX algorithm, with relevant research experience, it is expected to obtain the corresponding research results. Proposed project.

Third expert opinion: B-Revised funding

The content of the application is good, the method is also very appropriate, the research ideas are also relatively fine. But the writing has a problem, is blindly overstating the significance of research , such as XXXX, XXXX, these are not rigorous non-scientific expression. Youth Fund, if can be very fine implementation of a class XXXX algorithm library, and XXXX, is a very good job, you can send a sci. Priority funding should have been given, which is now recommended for funding.

Summarize:

(1) Writing hastily, from the advice of a third expert can be seen, because some of the non-rigorous expression, the opinion from a (preferential funding) to B (can be funded), really let me regret, is a very painful lesson! Therefore, the completion of the book should be under the great efforts to modify, further fine carving, not rigorous expression should be corrected all, to ensure that the book has no mishap under the premise, there is no objection to the jury speech;

(2) Perhaps the basic algorithm theory research is difficult to attract the eye of the experts, so a see is the name of the traditional algorithm, perhaps the first impression is no innovation, so in the future to further innovation in theoretical research, at least to have a new concept;

(3) Local fund applications must be combined with local characteristics, only aiming at the subject or industry to write applications, often there will be a "no significance to regional development, the urgency is not strong" views, in the future need to pay attention to;

(4) The idea of "weak research Foundation" makes me very difficult to understand.

Assessment opinions on the first Fund application