01
Problems with topic selection
1.Some topics are not novel enough, the problem orientation is unclear, and the nature of the times is lackingNovel topics generally include four categories: first, research fields or topics that no one has yet set foot in; the second is the theory of the frontier of the discipline**; the third is the new research perspective of old problems, the exploration of new materials or the application of new technologies and new methods; Fourth, the introduction and promotion of new theories and perspectives overseas. Among them, the first category is the most innovative, which belongs to the research projects that open up new research fields or research directions, or even create new disciplines, which have the value of filling academic gaps, and are the most likely to apply for such projects. Therefore, before establishing the topic, it is necessary to conduct targeted literature review and query of previous project information, so as to avoid engaging in repetitive research to the greatest extent. At the same time, through literature search and information inquiry, we can also understand the research level and current research hotspots of related research fields at home and abroad, which is also very valuable for determining the research topic and research direction. 2.inaccurate or vaguely defined concepts; The language is not very academicFor example: xxx ideology, xxx road, xx personnel conflict of interest research. What benefits to be studied? Political interests? Financial benefits? Or are there other interests? There is no detailed explanation of this topic. 3.The topic is too large, the content is too much to cover, or the time span is too large for the researcher to controlFor example: Ming and Qing xxx group research. This topic has a time span of 600 years, and if there is no solid scientific research ability and rich preliminary results, the possibility of successful application is relatively small. 4.The topic is too small and covers too little contentThe scope is too small and lacks characteristics and depth, which is included in similar topics, such as: xxx design application research, xxx system standardized management research in the construction of the Central Plains Economic Zone5.The direction of the topic is unknownFor example, in the study of several issues in the xxx system, the word "several" is not standardized. 6.There is a lack of theoretical embeddedness, regional embeddedness, and field embedding in the selection of topics, which cannot reflect the comparative advantages of the applicants7.The selection of the topic lacks the support of the previous results8.Significance of topic selection(1) The significance of the topic is overemphasized, and 1 5 of the unselected projects emphasize such as filling in the gaps and being original in China; (2) The meaning is too macroscopic, and it is impossible to see what the meaning is; (3) The meaning is too complex, and 1-2,000 words are written for the meaning alone. Therefore, it is most important or preferable to specify the meaning, such as what the significance is in theory or practice, or what contribution it has to the economic development of the country.
Research on the current situation
9.There is little review of the current state of research at home and abroadThere is a lack of synthesis, combing, description and review of the current research status; The literature is simply listed, the viewpoints are not sorted out and the list is simple, the important academic schools and views are not grasped in place and are not comprehensive, and there is a lack of comprehensive, accurate, in-depth and concise cleaning and summary of the domestic and foreign research results related to this topic. 10.The review of the current research status is incorrect and incompleteIt is not a review of the research status of predecessors, but an introduction to the concept of relevant terms; The review of the status of previous research is too general and does not include substantive research, or only lists certain books without explaining how their views differ from those of the applicant's own, thereby reflecting the importance of their research; 11.The content is not arrangedIt should be written in accordance with the structure and content requirements of the topic, and each section should be reasonably laid out and the number of words should be allocated. Don't exceed the word count, and don't go too little. For example, if 7,000 words are required, and your application is 4,000 words for the concept alone, this is an unreasonable structure. 12.The text is not precise and concise, and the expression is clear and understandableThe most important or better practice is to mention the representative works in the same field at home and abroad, and to comment on their views. Academic research mainly includes academic accumulation and academic innovation. To carry out academic innovation, it is the foundation to do a good job in academic accumulation. The so-called academic accumulation is to grasp the latest progress and level of research in the academic circles at home and abroad, and to comprehensively, accurately, in-depth, specific and concise clean-up, summarize and evaluate the relevant research results and their gains and losses. Only in this way can you make your topic argumentation reach a level higher than that studied by academic circles at home and abroad, and it also shows that you have really put a lot of effort into it. If your project argumentation report is lower than the academic level achieved by academic research at home and abroad, there is a high probability that your project will be eliminated. Comprehensive, which is reflected in a comprehensive grasp of the overview, progress and level of academic research at home and abroad, and an understanding of representative achievements, that is, "who is researching, what researching, how to research, what results, research gains and losses"; Accurate, which is manifested as the evaluation is in line with the facts and appropriate; Deep, embodied in the ability to grasp the crux and essence of the problem; Specifically, it is reflected in the fact that the information provided (such as figures, treatises, etc.) is relatively specific; Conciseness is reflected in the generality, conciseness and clarity of the expression.
Research content issues
Some put forward research ideas, but did not put forward research ideasSome of them are written in the framework of the whole book, and the key is to reflect the main points of the applicant through the main contentSome of the main points of view are absent, and research ideas and methods are used instead of viewsSome of the main points are not clear-cut, but are just general discussions, and there is nothing to attract attentionThe content of the study is too large for the main point to be expressed18.inaccurate positioning; Basic research? Or applied research? Basic research should focus on pioneering and originality; If it is applied research, it should focus on targeting, empirical and countermeasures, and should be comprehensive, strategic and forward-looking. If it is a comprehensive research, efforts should be made on interdisciplinary research. Otherwise, your entire argument may be unclear and inadequate. 19.The problem is unclearFailure to clarify the problems that the topic itself focuses on analyzing and solving, especially the key and difficult problems, and lacking the topic argumentation to analyze and solve the problems; To study any topic, it is necessary to analyze and solve problems, so the declarant should have a clear "problem awareness", and the focus of the whole topic argumentation should be on several problems to be analyzed and solved. 20.The research methods are not specific, they are simply listed, they are not targeted, and they are not sure which method they want to useFor example, the integrated research method, the interdisciplinary research method; It is necessary to clearly propose a research method that is appropriate for the topic itself. The research method depends on the nature of the research object or research topic, and the research method is different for different research objects and research topics. Therefore, when conducting the demonstration of a topic, we should not only put forward the need to take Marxism as the guide, but also put forward the specific methods to be used in the study of this topic. Otherwise, the reviewers will think that you do not understand the academic norms. For example, the philological method, the historical dialectical method, and the scientific and value unity method are important. 21.There is a lack of innovation in the research perspective and a lack of unique insights22.The topic lacks core ideas and is not innovative and currentThe most important thing in a topic is to carry out academic innovation on the basis of academic accumulation. Academic innovation is first embodied in the innovation of academic views. In order to achieve innovation in academic viewpoints, it is necessary to study new problems, use new methods, use new materials, and conduct new arguments. Therefore, when conducting the topic demonstration, it is necessary to fully explain the innovative value of the research results - new fields, new problems, new methods, new materials, new ideas, new advancements, new breakthroughs and new arguments when conducting topic demonstration. 23.The argument is insufficientIn a few words or only a few hundred words, the detailed arrangement of the content is unreasonable, top-heavy, the key points of the difficulties are not summarized accurately, and the concept of innovation points is vague. The research framework is unreasonable, the flow chart compilation lacks scientificity, the normativity is insufficient, the logic is unclear, the focus is not prominent, and the hierarchical arrangement is unreasonable; 24.The habit of colloquial expression is not strong in academic normativenessLack of academic language, academic content, incomprehensible sentences, unfluent writing, and inaccurate expression. There are even other words, white characters; 25.There's too much to study5-6 or even 7-8, generally 2-4 is better. The content of the study is not clearly stated and the logic is not strong; 26.The research content is written as a final report, and the core content is not prominent27.The content of the research is not relevant to the topic or is not highly relevantThe references are not authoritative, low-level, incomplete, omission, and there are few latest research results, and some of the references are long-term research monographs or even textbooks. There are few foreign references, or the authority is insufficient, and individual teachers use their own ** as references. It is advisable to have a relevant study in the first phase of 2015**; It is best to list information in a foreign language. Therefore, it is necessary to collect and organize research data through various effective methods. If you miss some representative and authoritative references, the reviewers may think that your work is not meticulous and serious. 04
Problems with the members of the research group
28.The structure of the research group is unreasonableThere are too many or too few people, there are more than three cooperative units, and some reach six, and the geographical distribution is too wide, and it is not easy to gather together to study the problem together. There is a lack of management departments in applied research, and personnel from practice departments are involved. 29.Some members' research results are not related to the topic and cannot support the research project30.The composition of the research group is an important indicator to measure the comprehensive research strength, whether the research task can be successfully completed and whether the research results can be produced with high qualityIn the past project application process, there have been cases where the applicant has selected the topic well and the topic demonstration is good, but the research group has only one applicant, or the comprehensive level of the members is low and fails to pass. It is best to combine the old, middle and young. Attention should be paid to meeting the following conditions: (1) high academic qualifications and professional titles; (2) Have research and influence on a certain issue; (3) Reasonable structure (discipline structure; knowledge structure; Departmental structure: theoretical workers; decision-makers; practitioners). Note: Members of the Youth Project Group must not be more than 35 years old. 05
Miscellaneous questions
31.The results of the previous work do not support the research of the topic, or are not related to the research topic32.The person in charge did not clearly state that he had the three conditions for the research of the subject:(1) Have the ability (qualifications, experience), conditions (empty computer, library, materials), it is difficult to ensure that there is time for many research projects. (2) Have comparative advantages (region, industry). (3) Research strength and status in the field covered by the topic. The budget is unreasonable, such as the research fee is too high, the annual expenditure is unreasonable, or the declared funds are too little or too muchThe format is not standardized, the font is not uniform, and the binding is not standardizedIndividual members are exceededIn order to communicate with the members of the relevant research group, the application of the doctoral program requires the approval of the supervisorThe subject is not within the scope of the funded discipline or the main part of the topic is not within the scope of the discipline. The innovation points and characteristics are not concise enough, and the expression is not accurate39.There are low-level errors such as typos in the declarationThis is a big no-no in the application materials, such as the use of "they" (which should have been "them") when describing non-third-person things, etc. From the feedback from the expert review of the national communication review, it can be found that many experts are particularly concerned about this low-level error, reflecting that the applicant is not serious and rigorous, which directly leads to the rejection of the book. 40.Plagiarism of other declarationsSome people have obtained some declarations through various channels, either from colleagues or on the Internet, which can be used as a reference to learn from, but some people think that the declaration is not checked and it is okay anyway. You know, the review experts are all big bulls in the field, and the application of the review over the years is estimated to be able to "go around the earth". Once "committed" in the hands of experts, not to mention that ** will definitely not be able to declare, your academic ethics will be over. 