For example, evaluating whether a fund project can be funded may only depend on the number of your papers, honorary titles (hats), professional titles, academic qualifications and awards. Even if these indicators are worthy of the name, they should be proportional. For example, personal research ability (including how many papers, patents, projects, academic qualifications, awards, honors, etc.). ) accounted for 40%, the quality of the project book (including innovation, road, feasibility, etc. ) accounts for 40%, and research platforms account for 20%. Every part has a weight, how can there be only one indicator? In my opinion, there are only two reasons why there is only one indicator in the evaluation process. First, people generally distrust some indicators and think that they are not worthy of the name. The second reason is the problem of the reviewers themselves, who objectively did not seriously abide by the project review guidelines. The first reason is that the credibility of papers is still the highest among many unreliable indicators, regardless of various criticisms, because particularly high-level papers have undergone strict international peer review, and their fairness can be relatively guaranteed. Here, I want to focus on the second issue, "obeying the law", which is actually a more deadly issue. In recent years, I have participated in project evaluation and title evaluation in many different countries. Frankly speaking, I have carefully studied their evaluation guidelines. They are not perfect, but what impressed me most is that once a resolution or guideline is consulted, everyone will seriously implement it. In other words, to measure whether the evaluation of a project fund is fair or not, in fact, the most important thing is whether the evaluator can seriously stop the evaluation according to the requirements of the evaluation guide. Of course, every reviewer inevitably has his own objective factors, such as evaluating the innovation of the fund book, which is actually the degree of the reviewer, which is another topic. But in any case, as long as we follow the evaluation guidelines carefully, how can we present the problem of only one indicator?
Another use of these indicators mentioned above is the evaluation of professional titles. Professional title evaluation certainly needs indicators, such as teaching accounting for 40%, scientific research accounting for 40%, and scientific research services accounting for 20%. When it comes to teaching, you will generally be judged according to the average number of classes you attend, the number of classes you attend, the number of students you attend, and the number of students' course answers. When it comes to students' course response, there is of course an objective component of students' grading. How to ensure the fairness of this score is actually a question of students' integrity. It is difficult for you to make 100% students' scores true and reliable, but all students' reaction scores must be credible when put together. If this indicator is incredible, then there is a big problem. Moreover, 40% of scientific research is nothing more than papers, patents, honors, projects and other indicators. Here, I will focus on the indicators of this project. From the national perspective, fund projects are of course investments. But from the perspective of universities, funds are income (many universities have management fees for funds, both at home and abroad). Personally speaking, obtaining funds, especially the highly competitive national funds, is of course a proof of my scientific research ability. There is no doubt about it, because your application for funds has gone through strict peer review like a scientific research paper.
Many people complain that there are various problems in the process of scientific research evaluation in China, and the state has also issued a series of policies aimed at "five talents". The central issue here is actually the "law enforcement" mentioned above. It is urgent for everyone to start from me and try their best to be fair and just in the process of judging and applying these indicators. Another issue is the level of local reviewers. There is no good way to do this, we can only make progress by time. A feasible auxiliary method is to learn from other mountains' stones, such as internationalization and evaluation diversification, which will help to make up for their own shortcomings.
Finally, it is a ripe question to engage in scientific research and innovation, so we should not be too anxious, haste makes waste. Researchers need a relatively stable and relaxed environment without too much pressure in their lives. The pressure of researchers mainly comes from the competition of international counterparts. China people's intelligence, intelligence, diligence and resilience, once produced, will be unstoppable.