Project review method and system and computer readable storage medium

Abstract

The invention provides a project evaluation method and system and a computer readable storage medium, and belongs to the technical field of project evaluation. The method aims at solving the technical problem that an existing single review mode causes one-sided and biased review results. The method comprises the following steps: grouping bidding items according to a preset classification standard; independently reviewing the project by a plurality of first reviewing experts, and outputting a qualitative reviewing result containing a recommendation level; converting the recommendation level into a quantitative score according to a preset score assignment rule to obtain a first-stage review total score; at least one second review expert carries out centralized discussion type common review on at least part of the bidding items, and a unified review opinion is formed; and finally, determining a final project approval project based on the first-stage review total score and the unified review opinions. According to the project review method and device, independent quantitative initial review and centralized discussion review are combined, the defect of a single review mode is effectively overcome, and the fairness, scientificity and efficiency of project review are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of project evaluation technology, and in particular to a project review method and system that combines independent quantification with centralized discussion. Background Technology

[0002] In many fields such as scientific research, investment, and bidding, project review is a crucial step in the decision-making process. Existing project review methods can generally be divided into two categories: one is online written review or independent communication review, and the other is offline centralized review via meeting.

[0003] The advantage of online independent review is that it allows review experts to make independent judgments without external interference, avoiding the undue influence of authoritative experts' opinions on other experts and ensuring the independence of review opinions. However, its disadvantages are also quite obvious. There is a lack of communication and intellectual exchange among experts, making it difficult to reach a deep consensus on certain complex aspects of the project, such as its clinical value, the underlying risks of technical implementation, and market prospects. Review opinions may tend to be superficial.

[0004] In-person review meetings, through face-to-face discussions, questioning, and debates among experts, allow for a more in-depth and comprehensive analysis of projects, making it easier to reach unified and more insightful review opinions. However, this model has drawbacks, including relatively low review efficiency and a tendency to generate an "authority effect," where the opinions of a few senior or influential experts may dominate the entire review outcome, affecting the objectivity of other experts' independent judgments and potentially leading to biased results.

[0005] To overcome the subjectivity of purely qualitative evaluations, some existing technical solutions attempt to introduce quantitative methods. For example, they employ mathematical models such as fuzzy hierarchical analysis to transform the qualitative judgments of review experts into calculable quantitative values, and then rank or classify projects based on the final comprehensive evaluation value. However, these quantitative methods are typically applied to the aforementioned single review model, essentially quantifying the expert's judgment at a specific stage without optimizing the review process itself. Therefore, whether it's independent peer review or centralized meeting review, even with the addition of quantitative tools, it still cannot fundamentally solve their inherent shortcomings: the former still lacks the intellectual exchange and in-depth questioning among experts, while the latter is still easily influenced by authoritative opinions, leading to potentially biased or one-sided review results, affecting the overall fairness and scientific rigor of the project review. Summary of the Invention

[0006] In view of the deficiencies in the prior art, the purpose of this invention is to provide a project review method, system, and computer-readable storage medium.

[0007] A project review method provided by the present invention includes: Based on the preset classification criteria, the multiple bidding projects to be reviewed are divided into at least one project group; Multiple first review experts are assigned to the project groups. Each first review expert independently reviews the bidding projects within the group and outputs qualitative review results including a recommendation level. According to the preset scoring rules, the recommendation level in the qualitative review results is converted into a quantitative score, and the total score of the first stage review for each bidding project is calculated. At least one second review expert shall be appointed to conduct a joint review of at least some of the tendered items through focused discussion, and to form a unified review opinion. Based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions, the final approved projects are determined. The determination of the final approved projects includes: for bidding projects that have undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions; for bidding projects that have not undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects according to preset rules.

[0008] Preferably, the preset classification criteria include: the subject area to which the project belongs, or the nature and type of the project.

[0009] Preferably, when the first review expert conducts an independent review, they also output a comprehensive evaluation of the bidding project. The evaluation dimensions of the comprehensive evaluation include at least one of the following: project tasks and objectives, feasibility of assessment indicators, research and development content and technical route, rationality of organization, implementation and management measures, and economic and social benefit analysis.

[0010] Preferably, when the second review experts conduct a joint review, the review focus includes at least one of the following: the clinical practical value of the prescription, the coverage of the disease population, the thoroughness of the preliminary research basis, and the possibility of successful application for in-hospital formulation.

[0011] Preferably, the method further includes: After converting the recommendation level in the qualitative review results into a quantitative score, and before conducting the joint review, a portion of the bidding projects are selected based on the total score of the first stage review. The joint review conducted by the second review experts is for the selected portion of the bidding projects.

[0012] A project review system provided by the present invention includes: The project management module is used to divide multiple bidding projects to be reviewed into at least one project group according to preset classification criteria; The first review module is used to provide an independent review interface for multiple first review experts to receive their qualitative review results, which include recommendation levels, and convert the recommendation levels into quantitative scores according to preset scoring rules, so as to calculate the total score of the first stage review for each bidding project. The second review module is used to provide a collaborative interface for at least one second review expert to record the unified review opinions formed after they have conducted a centralized discussion-based joint review of at least some of the bidding projects. The decision support module is used to: determine whether a bidding project is eligible for approval based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinion for bidding projects that have received the unified review opinion; and determine whether a bidding project is eligible for approval based on preset rules for bidding projects that have not received the unified review opinion.

[0013] Preferably, the decision support module is further configured to, before the second review module records the unified review opinion, select a portion of the bidding projects based on the total score of the first stage review; The second review module is used to record the unified review opinions formed after joint review of the selected bidding projects.

[0014] According to the present invention, a computer-readable storage medium is provided thereon storing a computer program, which, when executed by a processor, implements a project review method, the method comprising: Based on the preset classification criteria, the multiple bidding projects to be reviewed are divided into at least one project group; Multiple first review experts are assigned to the project groups. Each first review expert independently reviews the bidding projects within the group and outputs qualitative review results including a recommendation level. According to the preset scoring rules, the recommendation level in the qualitative review results is converted into a quantitative score, and the total score of the first stage review for each bidding project is calculated. At least one second review expert shall be appointed to conduct a joint review of at least some of the tendered items through focused discussion, and to form a unified review opinion. Based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions, the final approved projects are determined. The determination of the final approved projects includes: for bidding projects that have undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions; for bidding projects that have not undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects according to preset rules.

[0015] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: 1. Enhance fairness and objectivity: By setting up an independent review stage, the "authority effect" that may occur in centralized review is avoided, ensuring the independence of each expert's opinion. At the same time, by quantifying the qualitative opinions, preliminary objective evaluation basis that can be compared horizontally is provided for the project, overcoming the subjectivity of purely qualitative evaluation.

[0016] 2. Enhance the depth and scientific rigor of the review: By setting up a second stage of intensive discussion, the shortcomings of independent review, such as the lack of intellectual exchange and in-depth exploration, are compensated for. Cross-validation and in-depth debate among experts can lead to a deeper and more scientific consensus on complex issues such as the clinical value and implementation prospects of the project, thereby improving the quality of decision-making.

[0017] 3. Achieve multi-dimensional comprehensive evaluation: This application organically combines the breadth and objectivity of independent review with the depth and consensus of centralized review, forming a complementary review process of "independent quantitative preliminary review + centralized discussion and review". This effectively overcomes the inherent defects of the single review model, thereby significantly improving the overall fairness, scientificity and accuracy of project review.

[0018] 4. Improve review efficiency: The quantitative screening in the first stage can provide a pool of candidate projects with clear focus for the in-depth discussion in the second stage, so that review resources can be more concentrated on valuable projects, thereby improving the overall review efficiency while ensuring quality. Attached Figure Description

[0019] Other features, objects, and advantages of the present invention will become more apparent from the following detailed description of non-limiting embodiments with reference to the accompanying drawings: Figure 1 A flowchart of a project review method provided in this application embodiment; Figure 2 A functional module diagram of a project review system provided in this application embodiment; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of a two-stage review process provided for an embodiment of this application.

[0020] Explanation of reference numerals in the attached figures: 10. Project Management Module; 20. First Review Module; 30. Second Review Module; 40. Decision Support Module; 50. User and Permission Management Module; 60. Database; 100. Pool of Projects to be Reviewed; 200. First Review Stage; 210. First Review Experts; 300. Second Review Stage; 310. Second Review Experts; 400. Final Approved Projects. Detailed Implementation

[0021] The present invention will now be described in detail with reference to specific embodiments. These embodiments will help those skilled in the art to further understand the present invention, but do not limit the invention in any way. It should be noted that those skilled in the art can make several changes and improvements without departing from the concept of the present invention. These all fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0022] Example 1 This embodiment provides a project review method that combines independent quantification with centralized discussion. This method, through a two-stage, complementary review process, aims to overcome the limitations of a single review model, thereby improving the fairness, scientific rigor, and accuracy of project reviews. Please refer to [link / reference]. Figure 1 This illustrates the overall flow of the method provided in this embodiment. Meanwhile, Figure 3 The core idea of ​​this embodiment is illustrated in the form of a diagram. After a large pool of projects to be evaluated 100 undergoes independent screening and quantification in the first review stage 200, the selected projects enter the second review stage 300 for in-depth and focused discussion, ultimately producing high-quality final approved projects 400.

[0023] In a specific application scenario, such as a large hospital organizing a project bidding process to promote the research and development of in-house formulations, this method may include the following steps.

[0024] S101, Project Grouping. The review organizer, such as the hospital's research management department, needs to group the 42 submitted bids after receiving them. Since projects from different disciplines differ significantly in research methods and evaluation criteria, it is necessary to categorize them according to a pre-defined classification standard to ensure the professionalism of the review. In this embodiment, the classification standard is the discipline to which the project belongs. Specifically, the review administrator can divide the 42 bids into a "Bone Surgery" group and an "Other" group, each containing 21 projects. The "Bone Surgery" group mainly focuses on surgical alternative therapies and perioperative rapid rehabilitation; while the "Other" group covers multiple fields such as internal medicine, ophthalmology, and dermatology, emphasizing disease differentiation and treatment, and chronic disease management. This grouping lays the foundation for subsequently assigning experts in the corresponding fields for review.

[0025] S102, First Review Stage. After the project groups are formed, the first review stage begins, characterized by independent online reviews. The core of this step is to ensure that each expert's opinion is free from external interference, thereby ensuring the objectivity of the preliminary evaluation. The review organizers assign five first review experts 210 to each of the two project groups. Understandably, to ensure the impartiality of the review, the first review experts 210 are preferably external peer experts with no conflict of interest with the applicant organization.

[0026] After each first review expert 210 logs in through a secure review system account, the system interface will display a list of projects assigned to their review. For example, an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery will only see the 21 projects in the "Orthopedic Surgery" group. For each project, the expert must independently complete two tasks: First, provide a comprehensive evaluation of the bidding project. After carefully reviewing the entire project application, the expert must write a comprehensive evaluation of no less than 100 words. This evaluation should be targeted and evaluated from multiple dimensions, including but not limited to: the clarity and innovativeness of the project's tasks and objectives, the feasibility and quantifiability of the assessment indicators, the scientific nature and advancement of the research and development content and technical route, the rationality and guarantee of the organization, implementation and management measures, and the sufficiency of the project's expected economic and social benefits analysis. Second, provide a qualitative review result including a recommendation level. After writing the comprehensive evaluation, the expert must give an overall recommendation level for the project based on their professional judgment. In this embodiment, the recommendation level is divided into three levels: "Preferred Recommendation," "Recommended," and "Not Recommended." Among them, "priority recommendation" is usually given to outstanding projects that are highly innovative, have a solid research foundation, and have broad application prospects; "can be recommended" is given to projects that are well-rounded in all aspects and have certain research value and feasibility; while "not recommended" is given to projects that have obvious defects.

[0027] S103, Quantification. To standardize and compare the qualitative evaluations from different experts, the qualitative recommendation levels need to be converted into quantitative scores. In this embodiment, the preset scoring rules are: "Preferred Recommendation" = 3 points, "Recommended" = 2 points, and "Not Recommended" = 0 points. After all 210 first-stage review experts (5 in this example) have submitted their review results for a project, the system will automatically perform statistics and calculate the total score for the first stage of review by adding up the scores of the 5 experts. For example, if project A receives 2 "Preferred Recommendations", 2 "Recommended", and 1 "Not Recommended", its total score for the first stage of review is 2×3 + 2×2 + 1×0 = 10 points. All 42 projects will receive a total score between 0 and 15 points in this way, and the system can generate a preliminary ranking list based on this score.

[0028] S104, Second Review Stage. Building upon the first review stage, a second review stage is initiated, characterized by in-person, centralized review. This stage aims to address the lack of in-depth exchange in independent reviews, allowing for a more thorough analysis of the project through group discussions. The review organizers will separately appoint six second review experts (310), who are also preferably external peer experts. Their composition may differ partially or entirely from the experts in the first review stage to introduce more diverse perspectives.

[0029] The review organizers will hold a one-day in-person review meeting. At the meeting, the second review expert (310) will receive the application materials for all 42 projects and the statistical results of the first-stage review (such as the total score and ranking of each project, but the specific identities and personal comments of the first review experts can be concealed to maintain independent thinking in the second-stage review). Unlike the first stage, which focuses on technical details and the completeness of the plan, the second-stage review focuses more on practical matters, mainly conducting in-depth joint review and discussion on the following aspects: the clinical practical value of the prescription, the coverage of the disease population, the thoroughness of the preliminary research basis, and the likelihood of successful application for in-house formulations.

[0030] During the meeting, the expert panel discussed, questioned, and even debated each project individually, thereby reaching a more comprehensive and profound consensus on the overall value of the projects. For example, one expert might consider a project's technology novel, while another expert with extensive clinical experience might point out issues with compliance in practical application. For each project, after discussion, the expert panel needed to reach a unified review opinion and provide a clear recommendation for project approval, such as "recommendation for project approval" or "not recommended for project approval."

[0031] S105, Comprehensive Decision-Making. This step determines the final projects to be approved. Decision-makers, such as the hospital's academic committee or management, will consider the results of both phases of review for a comprehensive assessment. Specifically, decision-makers will receive a comprehensive report containing the total score and ranking of each project in the first phase of review, as well as the unified review opinions and project approval recommendations formed by the expert panel in the second phase.

[0032] It's important to note that the decision-making process is not simply a matter of adding up scores, but rather a comprehensive weighing of factors. For example, a project that ranks highly in the first stage might be rejected by the decision-makers if the expert panel identifies a fatal ethical risk during the second stage's intensive discussion and unanimously recommends against its approval. Conversely, a project with a moderate score in the first stage, if unanimously agreed by the expert panel in offline discussions that it has significant clinical value, can fill a treatment gap, and has a high success rate, and receives a strong recommendation for approval, is highly likely to be approved. This approach combines the objective quantitative ranking of independent reviews with the in-depth value judgment of intensive reviews, ensuring that the final selected projects possess innovation, scientific rigor, feasibility, and application value, thus making the overall review results more fair, just, and scientific.

[0033] Example 2 As an optional implementation, this embodiment provides a more refined project evaluation method. In scientific research project bidding practice, the evaluation focus should differ for projects of different natures. For example, when evaluating exploratory basic research projects, the innovativeness of their scientific questions should be emphasized; while when evaluating applied development projects that are close to commercialization, their technical feasibility and market prospects should be emphasized. This embodiment achieves this differentiated and refined evaluation by optimizing project grouping criteria and quantitative processing methods.

[0034] In this embodiment, the preset classification criteria for project grouping step S101 are adjusted to the nature and type of the project. Assuming that 42 projects are received for evaluation, the review administrator will classify them into the "basic research" group, the "application development" group, and the "clinical trial" group according to the project type specified in the project application.

[0035] Accordingly, the evaluation and scoring methods in the first review stage, step S102, and the quantification process, step S103, have also been adjusted. When conducting independent reviews, the first review expert 210 no longer provides a general recommendation level, but instead scores the project across multiple subdivided dimensions. More importantly, the evaluation dimensions and the weight of each dimension differ for project groups of different natures.

[0036] Specifically, the system can preset the following evaluation model: For projects in the "Basic Research" group, the evaluation dimensions and weights can be set as follows: scientific innovation (weight 0.4), rationality of research plan (weight 0.3), research team and foundation (weight 0.2), and expected impact of results (weight 0.1). For projects in the "Application Development" group, the evaluation dimensions and weights can be adjusted to: technical feasibility and maturity (weight 0.4), market demand and application prospects (weight 0.3), innovation and intellectual property rights (weight 0.2), and team and implementation plan (weight 0.1). For projects in the "Clinical Trials" group, the evaluation dimensions and weights can be set as follows: scientific and ethical nature of clinical protocol design (weight 0.4), clinical value and necessity (weight 0.3), subject recruitment and quality control (weight 0.2), and research team and institutional conditions (weight 0.1).

[0037] In the first review stage step S102, each first review expert 210 needs to score each dimension of the project being reviewed, for example, using a scoring system of 1-10 points.

[0038] In the quantitative processing step S103, the system will automatically calculate the weighted score for each expert on the project based on the experts' scores for each dimension and the preset weights. The calculation formula is as follows: ,in, It is the expert's score for the i-th dimension. This refers to the weight of that dimension. Subsequently, the system aggregates the weighted scores of all experts (e.g., N=5) to calculate the final first-stage review score for the project. For example, the average of all expert weighted scores can be used: .this This is the total score for the first stage of the project review.

[0039] The subsequent second review stage steps S104 and comprehensive decision-making step S105 are similar to those described in Embodiment 1. During the group discussion, the second review experts 310 can refer to the more detailed multi-dimensional scores of each project in the first stage. This provides them with richer and more structured information, helping them quickly identify the strengths and weaknesses of projects, thus enabling more targeted discussions. For example, the expert group might find that a project has a high "innovation" score but generally low "technical feasibility" scores, and then focus on discussing its technical risks. Through the method of this embodiment, differentiated evaluation criteria are used for different types of projects, making the quantitative evaluation results of the first stage more scientific and accurate, better reflecting the true value of the project in its specific field, and providing a higher-quality basis for subsequent review decisions.

[0040] Example 3 This embodiment aims to address the efficiency issue in reviewing a large number of projects, and represents a further optimization of the aforementioned embodiments. Organizing lengthy, centralized review meetings with multiple high-level experts is costly and time-consuming. In-depth discussions of all projects are not only inefficient but may also distract experts. Therefore, this embodiment introduces a screening step into the review process to improve the efficiency and focus of the second-stage centralized review.

[0041] The method flow of this embodiment is as follows: Figure 1 This was expanded upon. Specifically, a key screening step was added between the quantification step S103 and the second review stage step S104.

[0042] First, the project grouping step S101, the first review stage step S102, and the quantification process step S103 are the same as described in the previous embodiment. All tender projects to be reviewed (e.g., 100 projects) are independently reviewed by the first review expert 210 and each receives its own first-stage review total score.

[0043] Next, a new screening step is implemented. This step aims to select a more promising "review candidate pool" (i.e., a shortlist) based on the quantitative results of the first phase. Screening rules can be preset; common rules include: 1. Proportional screening: The system ranks all 100 projects in descending order based on the total score of the first phase review and automatically selects the top 30% of projects to enter the review candidate pool. 2. Threshold-based screening: The system presets a score threshold (e.g., 10 points); all projects with a total score of 10 points or greater than or equal to this threshold are automatically included in the review candidate pool.

[0044] This screening process filters out a large number of projects that scored low in the first stage and were generally not favored by experts. For example, 30 projects were selected from 100 to enter the review pool.

[0045] Then, the second review stage step S104 is executed. Unlike Example 1, the second review experts 310 no longer review all 100 projects, but only conduct a focused discussion-based joint review of the selected 30 projects. In this way, experts can concentrate their limited time and energy entirely on these more competitive projects, conducting a more in-depth and detailed analysis, thereby significantly improving the depth and quality of the review and saving valuable expert resources and time costs.

[0046] Finally, the comprehensive decision-making step S105 is executed. The decision logic for this step must cover all initial projects to ensure the integrity of the process. Specifically, for bidding projects that underwent joint review (i.e., the 30 projects that entered the review candidate pool), the decision-maker will make a comprehensive judgment based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions formed in the second stage to determine whether it is a final approved project 400. This decision-making process is consistent with Example 1. For bidding projects that did not undergo joint review (i.e., the 70 projects that were screened out), their approval status is determined according to preset rules. In this example, a clear and reasonable preset rule is: all projects that fail to enter the review candidate pool are automatically considered "not recommended for approval" and ultimately determined as non-approved projects.

[0047] By introducing this screening mechanism, this embodiment greatly improves review efficiency while ensuring review quality, making the entire review process more operable and economical when facing large-scale project review tasks.

[0048] Example 4 This embodiment describes in detail, from a system implementation perspective, a project review system for executing the above-described project review method. Please refer to... Figure 2The diagram illustrates the functional modules of the project review system provided in this embodiment. Through modular design, the system solidifies the review process into software functions, thereby ensuring the standardization, security, and efficiency of the review work.

[0049] The project review system can be a browser / server-based web application deployed on a cloud server or an internal institutional server. The core hardware of the system may include servers, database storage devices, etc. The application software running on the server mainly consists of the following functional modules, which collaborate with each other through application programming interfaces (APIs) and interact with a central database 60.

[0050] User and Access Management Module 50: As the foundation of the entire system, this module manages all user accounts participating in the review process and assigns different roles to users, such as "System Administrator," "First Review Expert," "Second Review Expert," and "Decision Maker." Different roles have strictly isolated access permissions. For example, a user with the "First Review Expert" role (corresponding to First Review Expert 210) can only access the projects assigned to them after logging in and cannot view the review comments of other experts, thus ensuring the "blind review" nature of the independent review. This module ensures the confidentiality and standardization of the review process.

[0051] Project Management Module 10: This module is primarily used by the "System Administrator" and is responsible for executing the project grouping step S101. Through this module's interface, the administrator can import batch information of bidding projects awaiting review into the database 60, create project groups according to preset classification criteria (such as "Subject Area" in Example 1 or "Project Nature Type" in Example 2), and assign projects to the corresponding groups. Furthermore, this module is also used to assign experts, associating the "First Review Expert" and "Second Review Expert" accounts with the corresponding review tasks.

[0052] First Review Module 20: This module is the core functional carrier for executing the first review stage steps S102 and quantification processing step S103. When a "first review expert" logs into the system, this module presents their personal workbench, listing the projects to be reviewed. Experts can click on any project to view the project application online and submit review comments on the same interface. The form design of this module is dynamic: in the scenario of Example 1, the form includes a comprehensive comment text box and a group of radio buttons for recommendation levels; in the scenario of Example 2, the module dynamically generates a scoring table containing multiple weighted scoring items based on the project type. After the expert submits, the data is securely stored in database 60. This module also includes background processing logic that automatically calculates the total score for the first stage review according to preset rules after all experts have completed their reviews of a project and updates it to database 60.

[0053] Second Review Module 30: This module supports the execution of step S104 in the second review stage. Its users are primarily "second review experts" or "system administrators" who assist in recording. This module provides a collaborative interface displaying a list of projects awaiting centralized review. In the scenario of Example 3, this list only includes projects selected from the "review candidate pool." The interface clearly displays basic project information and the total score of the first stage review. After the expert group reaches a consensus, authorized users can use this module to input unified review opinions and project proposals, which are then stored in database 60.

[0054] Decision Support Module 40: This module serves the final "decision-maker" and is used to execute the comprehensive decision-making step S105. It integrates all data generated by the first and second review modules from the database 60 to generate a comprehensive decision report. The report may include basic project information, the total score and ranking of the first stage, anonymous comments, and the unified opinions and suggestions of the second stage. The core function of this module is to realize a complete decision-making logic: for bidding projects that have received unified review opinions recorded by the second review module 30, the first stage total score and the second stage opinions are displayed side by side for the decision-maker to weigh comprehensively; for bidding projects that have not received unified review opinions (such as projects that were filtered out in Example 3), the final status "not approved" is automatically generated according to preset rules (for example, all projects that do not enter the second stage review are considered not approved) and clearly marked in the report. In this way, the decision-maker can obtain a complete decision view covering all initial projects. In addition, when supporting the process of Example 3, this module also has a filtering function, which can automatically generate a "review candidate pool" according to a set ratio or threshold and push it to the second review module 30.

[0055] Through the collaborative work of the above modules, the system in this embodiment streamlines and automates the complex two-stage review process, which not only improves work efficiency but also ensures the fairness, transparency, and traceability of the review process through technical means.

[0056] This application also protects a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program stored is executed by a processor to implement the methods described in any of the above embodiments.

[0057] Specific embodiments of the present invention have been described above. It should be understood that the present invention is not limited to the specific embodiments described above, and those skilled in the art can make various changes or modifications within the scope of the claims, which do not affect the essence of the present invention. Unless otherwise specified, the embodiments and features described in this application can be arbitrarily combined with each other.

Claims

1. A project review method, characterized in that, include: Based on the preset classification criteria, the multiple bidding projects to be reviewed are divided into at least one project group; Multiple first review experts are assigned to the project groups. Each first review expert independently reviews the bidding projects within the group and outputs qualitative review results including a recommendation level. According to the preset scoring rules, the recommendation level in the qualitative review results is converted into a quantitative score, and the total score of the first stage review for each bidding project is calculated. At least one second review expert shall be appointed to conduct a joint review of at least some of the tendered items through focused discussion, and to form a unified review opinion. Based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions, the final approved projects are determined. The determination of the final approved projects includes: for bidding projects that have undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions; for bidding projects that have not undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects according to preset rules.

2. The project review method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The preset classification criteria include: the subject area to which the project belongs, or the nature and type of the project.

3. The project review method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the first review expert conducts an independent review, they also output a comprehensive evaluation of the bidding project. The evaluation dimensions of the comprehensive evaluation include at least one of the following: project tasks and objectives, feasibility of assessment indicators, research and development content and technical route, rationality of organization, implementation and management measures, and economic and social benefit analysis.

4. The project review method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When the second review experts conduct a joint review, the review focus includes at least one of the following: the actual clinical value of the prescription, the coverage of the disease population, the thoroughness of the preliminary research basis, and the likelihood of successful application for in-house formulation.

5. The project review method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method further includes: After converting the recommendation level in the qualitative review results into a quantitative score, and before conducting the joint review, a portion of the bidding projects are selected based on the total score of the first stage review. The joint review conducted by the second review experts is for the selected portion of the bidding projects.

6. A project review system, characterized in that, include: The project management module is used to divide multiple bidding projects to be reviewed into at least one project group according to preset classification criteria; The first review module is used to provide an independent review interface for multiple first review experts to receive their qualitative review results, which include recommendation levels, and convert the recommendation levels into quantitative scores according to preset scoring rules, so as to calculate the total score of the first stage review for each bidding project. The second review module is used to provide a collaborative interface for at least one second review expert to record the unified review opinions formed after they have conducted a centralized discussion-based joint review of at least some of the bidding projects. The decision support module is used to: determine whether a bidding project is eligible for approval based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinion for bidding projects that have received the unified review opinion; and determine whether a bidding project is eligible for approval based on preset rules for bidding projects that have not received the unified review opinion.

7. The project review system according to claim 6, characterized in that, The decision support module is also used to select a portion of the bidding projects based on the total score of the first stage review before the second review module records the unified review opinions. The second review module is used to record the unified review opinions formed after joint review of the selected bidding projects.

8. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that, When the computer program is executed by a processor, it implements a project review method, which includes: Based on the preset classification criteria, the multiple bidding projects to be reviewed are divided into at least one project group; Multiple first review experts are assigned to the project groups. Each first review expert independently reviews the bidding projects within the group and outputs qualitative review results including a recommendation level. According to the preset scoring rules, the recommendation level in the qualitative review results is converted into a quantitative score, and the total score of the first stage review for each bidding project is calculated. At least one second review expert shall be appointed to conduct a joint review of at least some of the tendered items through focused discussion, and to form a unified review opinion. Based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions, the final approved projects are determined. The determination of the final approved projects includes: for bidding projects that have undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects based on the total score of the first stage review and the unified review opinions; for bidding projects that have not undergone the joint review, determining whether they are approved projects according to preset rules.

Images