IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2278-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation, ranking and selection of R&D projects by multiple experts: an evidential reasoning rule based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Fang Liu

    (Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics)

  • Wei-dong Zhu

    (Hefei University of Technology)

  • Yu-wang Chen

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Dong-ling Xu

    (The University of Manchester)

  • Jian-bo Yang

    (The University of Manchester)

Abstract

As a typical multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) problem, research and development (R&D) project selection involves multiple decision criteria which are formulated by different frames of discernment, and multiple experts who are associated with different weights and reliabilities. The evidential reasoning (ER) rule is a rational and rigorous approach to deal with such MCGDM problems and can generate comprehensive distributed evaluation outcomes for each R&D project. In this paper, an ER rule based model taking into consideration experts’ weights and reliabilities is proposed for R&D project selection. In the proposed approach, a utility based information transformation technique is applied to handle qualitative evaluation criteria with different evaluation grades, and both adaptive weights of criteria and utilities assigned to evaluation grades are introduced to the ER rule based model. A nonlinear optimisation model is developed for the training of weights and utilities. A case study with the National Science Foundation of China is conducted to demonstrate how the proposed method can be used to support R&D project selection. Validation data show that the evaluation results become more reliable and consistent with reality by using the trained weights and utilities from historical data.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2278-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2278-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2278-1
    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/s11192-017-2278-1?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. Norman Baker & James Freeland, 1975. "Recent Advances in R&D Benefit Measurement and Project Selection Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(10), pages 1164-1175, June.
    2. Primož Južnič & Stojan Pečlin & Matjaž Žaucer & Tilen Mandelj & Miro Pušnik & Franci Demšar, 2010. "Scientometric indicators: peer-review, bibliometric methods and conflict of interests," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 429-441, November.
    3. 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.
    4. Dong-Ling Xu, 2012. "An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 163-187, May.
    5. Liu, Weishu & Hu, Guangyuan & Tang, Li & Wang, Yuandi, 2015. "China's global growth in social science research: Uncovering evidence from bibliometric analyses of SSCI publications (1978–2013)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 555-569.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhu, Weidong & Zhang, Tianjiao & Wu, Yong & Li, Shaorong & Li, Zhimin, 2022. "Research on optimization of an enterprise financial risk early warning method based on the DS-RF model," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Goran Bjelobaba & Ana Savić & Teodora Tošić & Ivana Stefanović & Bojan Kocić, 2023. "Collaborative Learning Supported by Blockchain Technology as a Model for Improving the Educational Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhexuan Zhou & Yajie Dou & Jianbin Sun & Jiang Jiang & Yuejin Tan, 2017. "Sustainable Production Line Evaluation Based on Evidential Reasoning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, October.
    5. Goran Bjelobaba & Marija Paunovic & Ana Savic & Hana Stefanovic & Jelena Doganjic & Zivanka Miladinovic Bogavac, 2022. "Blockchain Technologies and Digitalization in Function of Student Work Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-22, April.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Jürgen Janger & Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy & Anna Strauss-Kollin, 2019. "International Differences in Basic Research Grant Funding. A Systematic Comparison," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61664, April.
    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. 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).
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Thomas Feliciani & Junwen Luo & Lai Ma & Pablo Lucas & Flaminio Squazzoni & Ana Marušić & Kalpana Shankar, 2019. "A scoping review of simulation models of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(1), pages 555-594, 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:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2278-1. 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.