•  
  •  
 

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version)

Keywords

research evaluation, breaking the four-only criteria, old and new models, transformation reform

Abstract

The national 15th Five-Year Plan once again emphasizes breaking the four-only criteria. Why is it so difficult to dismantle the four-only criteria? This study argues that an in-depth analysis of the underlying logical relationship between the old label-based evaluation model and the new connotation-oriented quality evaluation model is required to address this question. The study finds that the label-based evaluation model is a rational choice under specific historical circumstances and it has delivered positive effects. During the transition toward connotation-oriented quality evaluation, problems concerning indicators such as academic papers have been well resolved. Nevertheless, national science and technology awards and talent titles retain strong institutional inertia, standing as major obstacles to breaking the four-only criteria. This study proposes that these difficulties demand systematic planning amid the shift from traditional research administration to modern research governance, and puts forward four paths for the transformation reform of evaluation models.

First page

1237

Last Page

1246

Language

Chinese

Publisher

Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences

References

[1] 张剑. 中国近代科学与科学体制化. 成都: 四川人民出版社, 2008.  Zhang J. Modern Science and the Institutionalization of Science in China. Chengdu: Sichuan People’s Publishing House, 2008. (in Chinese)

[2] 王扬宗. 中国科学技术事业的历史性转变——回望1978年全国科学大会. 中国科学院院刊, 2018, 33(4): 351-361.  Wang Y Z. Historic Transformation of China’s Science and Technology Undertakings—Review on the 1978 National Science Conference. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2018, 33 (4): 351-361. (in Chinese)

[3] 从率先引入SCI论文指标，到主动打破“SCI至上”——南大“三板斧”直指科研评价改革. 中国教育报, 2022-12-19(08).  From pioneering introduction of SCI indicators to breaking SCI supremacy—Nanjing University’s reform on research evaluation. China Education Daily, 2022-12-19(08). (in Chinese)

[4] Fyfe A. The royal society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665-1965. The British Journal for the History of Science, 2015, 48(4): 561-582.

[5] 龚旭. 科学政策与同行评议——中美科学制度与政策比较研究. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2009.  Gong X. Science Policy and Peer Review: A Comparative Study of Sino-US Scientific Systems and Policies. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press, 2009. (in Chinese)

[6] 徐芳, 李晓轩. 国际科技评价改革十年评述. 中国科学院院刊, 2024, 39(1): 121-130.  Xu F, Li X X. A decade review of international research evaluation reform. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2024, 39(1): 121-130. (in Chinese)

[7] Holbrook J B. Assessing the science-society relation: The case of the US National Science Foundation’s second merit review criterion. Technology in Society, 2005, 27(4): 437-451.

[8] 李锋亮, 黄倩殷. 英国科研评估制度变化动向及其启示. 学位与研究生教育, 2015, (1): 74-77.  Li F L, Huang Q Y. Trends and enlightenment of UK research evaluation system reform. Academic Degrees & Graduate Education, 2015, (1): 74-77. (in Chinese)

[9] 方新, 龚旭. 中国基础研究改革与发展// 薛澜. 中国科技发展与政策1978—2018. 北京: 中国社会科学文献出版社, 2018.  Fang X, Gong X. Reform and development of basic research in China// Xue L. Science and Technology Development and Policies in China (1978-2018). Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press (China), 2018. (in Chinese)

[10] 中国科学技术信息研究所. 2004年度中国科技论文统计与分析. 北京: 科学技术文献出版社, 2005.  Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China. Statistics and Analysis of Chinese S&T Papers 2004. Beijing: Scientific and Technical Documentation Press, 2005. (in Chinese)

[11] 张维迎. 关于《北京大学教师聘任和职务晋升制度改革方案》（征求意见稿）的十四点说明. 学术界, 2003, (5): 27-44.  Zhang W Y. Fourteen explanations on the draft regulations of Peking University faculty appointment and promotion system. Academia, 2003, (5): 27-44. (in Chinese)

[12] 李福安. 采用国际评审方法聘任研究员. 中国科学院院刊, 2004, 19 (2): 135-136.  Li F A. Appointment of researchers via international evaluation mechanism. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2004, 19 (2): 135-136. (in Chinese)

[13] 施一公, 王慧敏. 分类推进高校改革视域下发展新型研究型大学的若干思考. 中国高等教育, 2025, (2): 28-31.  Shi Y G, Wang H M. Thoughts on developing new-type research-oriented universities under the background of classified higher education reform. China Higher Education, 2025, (2): 28-31. (in Chinese)

[14] 郭雷. 关于进一步深化科技奖励制度的建议// 中国科学院, 中国工程院. 百名院士谈建设世界科技强国. 北京: 人民出版社, 2019.  Guo L. Suggestions on further deepening the reform of science and technology reward system// Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Engineering. Hundreds of Academicians on Building a World-Leading Science and Technology Power. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2019. (in Chinese)

[15] 徐芳, 李晓轩. 跨越科技评价的“马拉河”. 中国科学院院刊, 2017, 32(8): 879-886.  Xu F, Li X X. Crossing the Mara River of science and technology evaluation. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2017, 32(8): 879-886. (in Chinese)

[16] 徐芳, 李晓轩. 在“破”与“立”之间：科技评价的BRIDGE理论. 中国科学院院刊, 2022, 37 (8): 1099-1107.  Xu F, Li X X. Between breaking and establishing: The BRIDGE theory of research evaluation. Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 2022, 37(8): 1099-1107. (in Chinese)

Download
Request a Copy

Share

COinS