At present, our government does not rank universities, but evaluates their disciplines. At present, four rounds of subject evaluation have been completed. In the last round of "double-first-class" evaluation, many schools were selected into the list of "double-first-class" universities in China by virtue of A+ disciplines, which shows that the fifth round of discipline evaluation is particularly important for each university. In addition, China is currently conducting the second round of "double first-class" evaluation, and many schools hope to enter the list. After all, the number of universities in China has reached more than 3,000, while there are only 100 double-class universities. If it is currently carried out, what are the indicators of subject evaluation? Just recently, the Ministry of Education announced the fifth round of discipline evaluation work plan. The scheme pays attention to multi-evaluation and adopts multi-dimensional method. Teachers should be evaluated not only by their academic qualifications and professional titles, but also by the "hat" index of talents, so as to avoid the practice of unilaterally evaluating academic level by professional titles. Evaluation of scientific research level is not limited to papers and awards, and indicators such as "representative academic works", "patent transformation" and "new drug research and development" are set to evaluate scientific research effectiveness in multiple dimensions. The evaluation of academic papers focuses on symbolic academic achievements, and adopts the "representative evaluation" mode of "combining quantitative evaluation with expert evaluation" and "combining China journals with foreign journals", downplaying the number and citation rate of papers, and not taking SCI and ESI related indicators as the direct evaluation basis, stipulating that representative papers must contain a certain proportion of China journal papers, highlighting the innovative quality and academic contribution of symbolic academic achievements. Make full use of the expert fusion evaluation method based on quantitative data and objective evidence, and adhere to the combination of expert evaluation of representative achievements and quantitative evaluation of high-level achievements.