推进代表作评价存在的问题与对策研究

Promoting the Evaluation of Representative Works:Challenges and Recommendations

代表作制度作为科技评价中开始施行的一种新的制度,对其进行分析思考有助于代表作制度的完善,提高科技评价质量。本文首先对评价对象进行分析,然后从评价目的、评价对象、同行评议、评价技术等角度分析了代表作评价存在的问题,并对代表作的可靠性和通过率进行了数学证明。研究结果发现,代表作评价缺乏宏观评价视角、跨学科难以比较、作者难以选择、不同类型代表作不可比、学科异质性影响代表作评价、对不同学者评价存在适用问题、同行评议制度不够完善、评审专家难以满足需要、评价不同分组难以比较、评价成本高昂和评价可靠性不高等问题。最后本文提出政策建议:不宜扩大代表作的评审范围、明确代表作选取要求、进一步细化分类评价、采用传统方法对初中级学者评审、建立量化考核与代表作兼顾的评审制度、提高同行评审质量、给予高校科技评审的自主权、推广一些文献计量指标、完善科技评价机制。

The representative system has recently been implemented in scientific and technological evaluations.Analyzing and thinking about the representative system is helpful to perfect the representative system and improve the quality of scientific and technological evaluations.To this end,the present article first analyzes the evaluation object.Next,the challenges in evaluating the representative work are examined from the perspective of the evaluation purpose,evaluation object,peer review,and evaluation technology.Finally,the reliability and pass rate of the representative work is mathematically proven.Studies have found that representative evaluation suffers from the following challenges:macroscopic perspective,the interdisciplinary comparison,the author's requirement to choose between different types of work and the masterpiece,subject heterogeneity impact assessment,applicability to different academic evaluation problem,the imperfection of the peer review system,mismatch between the assessments of evaluation experts and the objective,difficulty in comparing different groups,high cost,and low reliability of assessment.Furthermore,the following policy recommendations are made.First,it is inappropriate to expand the scope of the representative work review.Second,the requirements for representative work selection should be clarified,the classification evaluation should be refined,and traditional methods should be used for junior and intermediate scholars.Finally,a review system should be established that considers both quantitative assessment and representative works,improves the quality of peer review,provides autonomy to universities in science and technology review systems,promotes bibliometric indicators,and improves the technology evaluation mechanism.