Study On The Problems About Expert Selection Of Peer Review Based On The Viewpoint Of Scientometrics

Scientific Evaluation is an important part of scientific management work. It is also an important mean and a guarantee to promote the optimized configuration of scientific resource, and to improve the level of scientific management. The peer review is the leading ways employed in Scientific Evaluation all over the world at present. The quality of the peer review is directly related to selecting excellent and innovative science and research projects impersonally and impartially. Only those peer review experts with high quality can exactly judge the internal quality of science and research projects. Thereby, the source and selection of peer review experts are directly related to the quality and impartiality of the result of peer review.The peer review is an internal execution method of scientific evaluation, and is a democratic decision-making of scientific community. However, there are some intrinsic disadvantages in this internal execution way. Therefore, we can use the way of scientometrics to select the peer review experts from the external perspective of scientific evaluation. By the dynamic analysis of scientometrics, we can clearly understand the research status of peer review experts, and minimize the intrinsic disadvantages of peer review as soon as possible. Moreover, we can study expert selection problems of peer review from the viewpoint of scientometrics, and design the model of automatic expert selection system of peer review.There are five fundamental problems that will be answered in this paper from the viewpoint of scientometrics. Firstly, the technology of Visualized Author Co-citation Analysis is used to select the peer review experts with the same scientific paradigm. It has been convenient for science and research administrator to understand the macroscopic status in the subject domain, and to provide the scientific evidence of expert selection with reason. Secondly, the Co-word Analysis is used to judge the difference of scientific lingual environment and to select the true Peer review Expert. We can use scientific language, subject conception and other words as the standard and evidence to judge the true peer review expert. Thirdly, the scientific knowledge mapping can be used to select the peer review expert in cross-discipline domain, and to provide the credible data support and subject information of hotspot research in cross-discipline in order to better understand the development direction and the rule of cross-discipline domain for science and research administrator. Fourthly,"h-index"is used to select those scientists with more scientific contribution as peer review experts. It is a benefit for science and research administrator to evaluate and to select peer review expert. At the same time the"h-index"shows the scientific authority of peer review. Fifthly, the model of automatic Expert Selection System of peer review is designed in the viewpoint of scientometrics. This process need establish the index system and the selection principle of Expert System. Then the Expert Selection System of peer review can be established automatically.There are three innovative points in this study. Firstly, the technology of Visualized Author Co-citation Analysis of scientometrics is used to better judge scientific paradigm hold by peer review expert exactly, and provide the theoretical feasibility of automatic selection of Expert Selection System of peer review. Secondly, Co-word Analysis of Scientometrics can be used to judge research domain and subject specialized by peer review expert, and to provide the exact proof about the scientific research information in the recommendation table of peer review expert. It also provides the scientific and reasonable evidence for intelligent selection in Expert Selection System of peer review. Thirdly, the scientific knowledge mapping of scientometrics can be used exactly to judge the close research domain and hotspot research subject in the cross-discipline, and to find the appropriate peer review in the cross-discipline.