I would like to introduce some problems that need to be paid attention to when applying for the later funded projects of the National Social Science Fund, hoping to help you.

1. does not meet the declaration conditions. (1) The form of results is not within the scope of funding. Including applied research results, papers, databases, teaching materials, popular reading materials, personal declaration and translation, simple collection of literature, collation of ancient books and records, etc. (2) the application result is a doctoral thesis that has not been answered for three years or has not been significantly revised for three years. It is three years after the doctoral thesis is defended, and the revision rate exceeds 30% before it can be declared. The revised contents include the main points, content structure, research materials and space expansion. (3) The declared results have been published. Post-funded projects will not accept the declaration of revision or reprinting of published achievements, and the declared achievements shall not be published, and the overlapping content with published works shall not exceed 10%.

2. The application materials are incomplete and irregular. (1) The application form is incomplete and untrue. In some applications, the relevant information and recommendation opinions of three referees with senior titles were not filled in or false. Some applicants have incomplete information, or are wrongly filled in or concealed. (2) The declaration was not effectively anonymous. Disclosure of the applicant's relevant information in the cover, catalogue, text or postscript of the results. (3) Failing to submit the application form and loose leaf as required. Submit the application form and loose leaf in duplicate, of which 1 copy shall be sent to the social science planning office of the province (autonomous region or municipality) or the entrusted management unit in Beijing. (4) Improper avoidance of application for review. The column of three experts who applied to avoid the evaluation listed in the application can be left blank, but they can't be filled in casually. Experts who may really affect the fairness and impartiality of the evaluation should be filled in.

Third, the academic standardization of the application results is poor. (1) does not conform to theoretical logic and academic norms. For example, "studying history" is not an objective narrative based on history and lacks diachronic logic. (2) Lack of basic literature collation. (three) does not meet the reference standards. References, notes, etc. Have different degrees of deficiency. (4) Someone plagiarized.

4. Violation of reporting procedures. Some application materials have not been audited by the applicant's unit and the provincial (autonomous regions and municipalities) Social Science Planning Office or the entrusted management unit in Beijing. At present, there are two ways to declare the later funded projects: one is to declare by individuals themselves, and the other is to recommend by publishing houses. These two methods need to be audited by the scientific research management department of the applicant's unit, confirmed by the provincial (autonomous regions and municipalities) social science planning office or the entrusted management unit in Beijing, and recommended by three experts with professional and technical titles or publishing houses recognized by our office before they can be declared. The scientific research management department of the applicant's unit, the social science planning offices of the provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) or the entrusted management unit in Beijing undertake the audit responsibility, verify the author's personal situation and application information, sign the opinions and affix the official seal.