中文摘要：

学科专家组会议评审结果对项目能否得到科学基金资助起到关键作用，会评专家的公正性也因此备受学术界关注．本文以工程与材料学部、化学学部、信息学部、管理学部四个学部为样本，通过对比四学部第十届（2004--2005年）学科专家组349名会评专家任期前后所在机构获得基金资助的变化以及单因素方差分析，探讨会议评审专家与其来源机构获得基金资助情况的相关性．结果表明，在面上项目、青年项目中是否有本单位会评专家对获得基金资助是有影响的，但这种影响非常小；在重点项目中，是否有本单位会评专家对其获取重点项目影响不显著；NSFC会评专家队伍总体上能较好地履行评审职责．最后，依据实证结论对规范NSFC会评专家行为提出建议．

英文摘要：

Since the expert review meeting results play a key role in whether the project will be supported by science funds, the fairness of review meeting experts is under the strong spotlight in academic circles. Based on the sample of engineering and materials division, chemistry division, information division and management division, it compares the acquisition changes of original institutions before and after the term of the Tenth （2004--2005） 349 evaluation experts from four divisions, and conducts a single factor analysis of variance to confirm the correlation of evaluation experts and acquisition of original institutions. The results show that whether there are institute＇s experts do influence the institute＇s acquisition in General Projects and Youth Fund Projects, but the effect is very small, and whether there are institute＇s experts do not influence the institute＇s acquisition in Key Projects. On the whole, NSFC evaluation experts carry out well their review responsibilities. At last, suggestions on standardization of NSFC experts＇ behaviors are proposed based on empirical conclusions.