2026年5月11日May 11, 2026
2026年5月8日，HETRA举行跨学科工程评审研讨会，围绕多专业工程项目中的专家组合、证据分工、利益冲突回避和综合意见形成方式展开讨论。相关议题适用于HETEA评审、ETRSC课题评议和标准制修订等存在跨领域判断的工作场景。
研讨会指出，跨学科项目通常同时涉及结构安全、设备运行、材料性能、环境条件、数字系统或工程管理等不同问题。评审组织需要根据项目的关键风险和主要技术接口确定专家组合，而不是简单按照专业数量平均分配评审任务。
不同专家应对自己能够判断的证据范围作出清晰说明。对于跨专业接口问题，应通过交叉核验确认前提条件是否一致，并记录不同意见的依据。综合意见不能通过简单投票替代技术分析，也不应掩盖仍然存在的不确定性。
活动讨论了利益冲突识别与回避机制。评审人员如与申报人、项目单位或相关成果存在直接合作、商业关系或其他可能影响独立判断的关系，应当主动申报并退出相应评审环节。
研讨会同时提出，综合评审记录应能够说明参与专业、证据分工、主要分歧、核验过程和最终判断依据。相关讨论将用于后续跨学科项目评审流程和意见汇总方式的持续完善。
On May 8, 2026, HETRA held a Cross-disciplinary Engineering Review Seminar. The discussion addressed expert composition, division of evidence review, conflict-of-interest recusal, and the formation of integrated opinions in projects involving multiple disciplines. These issues are relevant to cross-field decisions in HETEA reviews, ETRSC project evaluations, and standards development.
Cross-disciplinary projects may simultaneously involve structural safety, equipment operation, material performance, environmental conditions, digital systems, or engineering management. The review team should therefore be formed according to the principal risks and technical interfaces of the project, rather than by simply assigning an equal number of tasks to each discipline.
Each expert should clearly identify the evidence that falls within the scope of his or her professional judgment. At disciplinary interfaces, assumptions should be cross-verified, and the basis of differing opinions should be recorded. An integrated conclusion cannot substitute simple voting for technical analysis, nor should it conceal unresolved uncertainty.
The seminar discussed the identification and management of conflicts of interest. A reviewer who has a direct collaborative, commercial, or other relationship with an applicant, project organization, or relevant outcome that may affect independent judgment should disclose that relationship and withdraw from the corresponding review stage.
An integrated review record should identify the participating disciplines, allocation of evidence review, principal disagreements, verification process, and basis for the final judgment. The discussion will inform continued improvement of cross-disciplinary review procedures and opinion-synthesis methods.