评审论坛评审论坛

Committee Overview

The GAADI Academic Achievement Review Committee is an independent professional body under the Alliance responsible for academic achievement review and recognition. The Committee has built an international review expert database covering six major disciplines, with experts from Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America, and other regions, covering engineering and technology, medicine and health, law and policy, business management, social sciences, and education and humanities as its six disciplinary directions.

All review experts undergo strict qualification review and selection procedures, hold doctoral degrees or equivalent academic credentials, and have extensive research experience and academic achievements in their fields. To protect review independence and fairness, expert information is managed by code and real names and institutional affiliations are not publicly disclosed.

Standards for Appointing Review Experts

To ensure the professionalism, independence, and fairness of academic achievement review work, the GAADI Academic Achievement Review Committee has established strict standards for appointing review experts. Appointment as a review expert is not based on a general application or nominal title, but on a comprehensive assessment of the candidate's professional qualifications, academic achievements, research experience, peer evaluation capability, and practical review ability within the relevant discipline.

1. Basic Appointment Requirements

Candidates appointed as review experts of the GAADI Academic Achievement Review Committee should, in principle, meet the following basic requirements:

1. Hold a doctoral degree, tenure-track or tenured academic appointment, researcher title, senior professional technical title, or possess academic, research, industry research, or professional practice experience equivalent to the above qualifications;
2. Have long-term involvement in research, teaching, practice, or professional evaluation work in fields such as engineering and technology, medicine and health, law and policy, business management, social sciences, education and humanities;
3. Have verifiable representative achievements within their professional direction, including but not limited to academic papers, research projects, monographs, patents, technical achievements, industry reports, policy research, educational achievements, management practice achievements, or other professionally valuable outcomes;
4. Have the professional judgment required to evaluate the achievements of others in the same or related fields, and be able to independently, objectively, and systematically assess academic achievements, research projects, papers, innovative practices, professional reports, or other professional outcomes according to clear review standards;
5. Have a sound record of academic integrity and professional reputation, with no serious academic misconduct, professional dishonesty, concealed conflicts of interest, or other circumstances that may affect review fairness.

2. Professional Achievement Requirements

Review expert candidates should have a certain level of academic accumulation or industry influence in their professional fields. When selecting experts, the Review Committee focuses on one or more of the following professional achievements:

1. Publication of professionally valuable papers, articles, reports, or research outcomes in professional journals, academic conferences, industry publications, or authoritative platforms;
2. Leadership of or participation in representative research projects, industry studies, technology development, educational research, management consulting, policy research, or interdisciplinary projects;
3. Ownership of patents, software copyrights, technical achievements, standards participation experience, white paper drafting experience, research report review or editing experience, or other verifiable original achievements;
4. Prior invitation to serve as a paper reviewer, conference reviewer, project reviewer, award judge, project evaluation expert, industry consultant, academic committee member, or in a related professional evaluation role;
5. Receipt of awards, honors, grant support, project approvals, media coverage, institutional recommendations, or peer recognition related to their professional field;
6. Service in important research, teaching, management, technical, or advisory roles at universities, research institutions, industry organizations, professional associations, corporate R&D departments, public institutions, or international cooperation projects.

3. Review Capability Requirements

In addition to a professional background, review experts should have the practical ability to carry out review work. The Review Committee focuses on whether candidates can:

1. Understand and apply the review standards, review procedures, and quality control requirements established by the GAADI Academic Achievement Review Committee;
2. Make independent judgments on the innovation, professionalism, application value, academic norms, methodological soundness, and impact of the achievements under review;
3. Issue review opinions with clear structure, sufficient basis, and definite conclusions;
4. Remain objective and neutral during the review process, without allowing applicant identity, institutional background, geographic origin, commercial relationship, or personal relationship to affect review judgment;
5. Comply with review deadlines, confidentiality obligations, conflict-of-interest recusal rules, and double-blind review principles;
6. Accept the Review Committee's rechecks of review opinion quality, review process compliance, and conflicts of interest.

4. Appointment Review Process

The GAADI Academic Achievement Review Committee applies tiered review and dynamic management to review experts. Appointment of review experts usually includes the following process:

1. Recommendation of candidate experts or submission of candidate materials;
2. Basic qualification review by the Secretariat;
3. Professional background review by the disciplinary direction group;
4. Comprehensive assessment by the Review Committee of the candidate's representative achievements, professional experience, review experience, and integrity record;
5. Conflict-of-interest and confidentiality compliance review of candidate experts;
6. After confirmation by the Review Committee, inclusion in the review expert database for the corresponding disciplinary direction;
7. Matching experts to specific achievement review work according to the needs of review projects;
8. Continuous recording and regular rechecking of expert review quality, performance, and compliance.

5. Appointment Categories

Based on experts' professional directions, review experience, and level of participation, the Review Committee may set the following appointment categories:

1. Academic Achievement Review Expert: responsible for professional review of papers, projects, research achievements, academic reports, and related outcomes;
2. Special Research Project Review Expert: responsible for professional evaluation of project approval, interim outcomes, and final outcomes;
3. Interdisciplinary Review Expert: responsible for joint review of comprehensive achievements involving multiple disciplinary directions;
4. Quality Recheck Expert: responsible for rechecking the completeness, standardization, professionalism, and reasonableness of review opinions and conclusions;
5. Invited Review Expert: an external expert with relevant professional background temporarily invited to participate in review according to the needs of a specific review project.

6. Term and Dynamic Management

Review experts are subject to term-based appointment and dynamic management. The expert term is usually determined according to the specific appointment category, review project cycle, and Committee work needs. During the term, review experts should continuously meet requirements for professional capability, review quality, confidentiality obligations, and conflict-of-interest recusal.

If any of the following circumstances occur, the Review Committee may suspend or terminate the expert appointment:

1. Failure to complete review work according to review requirements;
2. Repeated failure of review opinions to meet quality requirements;
3. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest as required;
4. Violation of confidentiality obligations;
5. Academic misconduct, professional dishonesty, or other circumstances affecting review fairness;
6. No longer being suitable to continue review work due to changes in professional direction, time availability, or other reasons.

7. Appointment Principles

The GAADI Academic Achievement Review Committee follows expert appointment principles based on professional capability, informed by peer recognition, and centered on review quality. The purpose of appointing review experts is to ensure that every academic achievement review is completed by experts with the corresponding professional background and judgment capability, so that the review work can truly reflect peer evaluation, professional judgment, and academic standards.

Representative Review Experts

The following are representative experts from the Review Committee, listed by code:

Note: To protect review independence and the double-blind principle, the information above shows only expert codes and summary backgrounds; real names and affiliations are not disclosed.

Independent Review Safeguard System

The Review Committee has established a complete independent review safeguard system to ensure objectivity, fairness, and authority in every review:

1. Conflict-of-Interest Recusal

Review experts and applicants must not have teacher-student, colleague, cooperation, family, or other relationships that may affect review fairness. During expert selection, the Review Committee screens candidate experts for conflicts of interest; if a conflict is found, the expert is replaced.

2. Double-Blind Principle

The entire review follows a double-blind system. Before submitted materials are sent to review experts, all personally identifiable information is removed; applicants also do not learn the experts' real identities. The double-blind principle fundamentally removes personal influence from review conclusions.

3. Review Confidentiality

Review experts have strict confidentiality obligations for all materials and information accessed during review. Review opinions and related work documents must not be disclosed to third parties, and related materials are securely destroyed or archived according to regulations after review.

4. Quality Review

The Review Committee has a dedicated quality review team that independently rechecks each review opinion letter to ensure professional content, reasonable conclusions, and standardized document format. Opinions that do not meet quality standards are returned for revision or re-review.

5. Appeal Mechanism

If applicants disagree with a review conclusion, they may submit a written appeal to the Review Committee within 30 business days after receiving the result. The Committee will organize different experts for re-review and issue a re-review opinion within 20 business days after receiving the appeal. The re-review conclusion is final.