Many scientific research stories have good concepts and are very attractive, but how does the story end? Whether the contents, from the starting point to the end point, are really connected in the logical chain, if they have not been rigorously tested in many dimensions such as large scale, large time domain, large range, large intensity, large frequency and depth, their reliability is questionable. Raising this question will help us strengthen the scientific style of seeking truth from facts and establish more scientific, comprehensive and reliable evaluation standards.

In today's highly competitive era, innovation is a very core topic. The first thing to evaluate a scientist's achievements, or the most straightforward and reliable point in the scientific community, is his innovative contribution to a problem or a field. However, there is a deep and narrow understanding of the connotation of innovation. Therefore, there is a problem of the accuracy and reliability of the identification and positioning of scientific research achievements. Is an achievement as beautiful as its original conceptual design from concept to research and development into technology and products? If practice is the only criterion for testing truth, then time is the only reliable witness to expose the truth. A new concept, from proposal to verification, often needs repeated verification by enough people, enough time and enough scenes, so as to fully expose and even verify all aspects of it. It is in this process that the original concept has been developed. Expose its shortcomings and confirm its reasonable parts, so as to develop and discard iterations and gradually become mature results.

The progress of verification, that is, the progress of exposing all aspects of its problems, directly determines the progress of achievement development.

As far as the academic research model is concerned, there are often communication obstacles for practical reasons. However, it is difficult to quickly identify its authenticity and prospects because there are not a large number of verification opportunities or opportunities for a large number of people to help use it. In contrast, enterprise R & D is often highly targeted. Various seemingly strange problems encountered by customers in the application process are the guide to guide researchers to deepen their thinking and constantly obtain new discoveries and new understanding. The R & D activities of this model are so-called market demand-oriented, the problems are specific and clear, and the direction of efforts is very clear, which is so concise. Relatively speaking, such research tasks often develop rapidly. Because of their obvious and predictable utilitarian prospects, they are easy to attract many people to participate, so they are relatively easy to be promoted by people for progress and development.

Relatively speaking, the research and development of enterprises, the emergence of problems, the exposure and positioning of the nature of problems, the investment of human and material resources, interested parties, and even the worries about mass production once a breakthrough is made, as well as the safety of topic selection, have long been considered properly. Even the routine and specific path of research and development are often branded with a deep mark of market demand guidance or internal logical limitations, It has its own distinctive characteristics and has a significantly different style from academic basic research. The emphasis on current cashability or utility of enterprise R & D and the weakness of succumbing to the market make enterprise R & D obviously weak in imagination and original innovation; For academic research and development, relatively speaking, the supporting basis for the proposal of many concepts is often relatively weak, insufficient or even wrong. These facts can be verified and discarded in the verification process of larger scale, large range and high frequency. It is often found to be wrong for a long time. Then, at this time, It is also common to go back to the starting point to rethink or go back to the logical chain before the examination, and then make the choice of starting.

Scientific research evaluation is like doing mathematical proof problems. Its essence is the same: pay attention to the strictness of logic and the reliability and steadiness of evidence. Therefore, it is very necessary and reasonable to give a study enough time and enough people to test it. It is worth paying attention to the independent thinking of evaluators, the scientificity of the evaluation system and the independent third party of implementation. In this sense, with the development of China's market economy, what can pass the market test can be called an objective, independent, large sample, large group, large time domain and large frequency test. It should be clear at a glance whether it is true or false, and how true and false it is.