In 2009, the Education Science Research Institute of the Ministry of Education released what is said to be the first performance evaluation list of universities affiliated with the Ministry of Education.The main indicators used in the chart are three categories: talent (teacher), funds (education and research funds), assets; and outputs: training students (undergraduate and graduate students) and achievements (published papers, awards and patents).In this list, the medium-sized Central China Agricultural University ranked 11th, in Wuhan seven direct universities ranked first, but also far ahead of some "985" universities.One of the more funded schools on the list is at the bottom.Because research funds as input in index system are denominator in performance evaluation, so the more funds, the lower the ranking naturally.I heard that the leaders of this school privately say that they have not reported full scientific research funds, so the denominator is smaller, and if reported according to actual funds, it will rank lower.I think this kind of performance evaluation may not be perfect, but it is also a wake-up call for those units and individuals who only use various means to compete for funds, rather than focusing on practical research.This performance evaluation should be an integral part of the scientific evaluation.
Scientific evaluation is an old topic, involving evaluation of people, achievements and institutions.Scientific evaluation is a simple and complex problem.In a society where the rule of law is sound and people are honest, scientific evaluation standards have a basic consensus (for example, the above-mentioned performance evaluation list of universities is an example).The contribution evaluation of basic scientific research mainly depends on the results published in public journals and conferences, and has received positive responses from peers, such as the present paper citation.Of course, evaluating the results of a basic scientific study is also a complex matter, sometimes subject to the test of time.This article does not intend to engage in too much discussion in this regard.I say that scientific evaluation is complicated by the interference of human factors and administrative factors under the present system of our country.For example, some universities and academic research institutions in China often take scientific research projects and funding as an important positive evaluation condition when hiring or evaluating professors and researchers.Even some units can get high-budget projects to implement special policies for direct employment as senior titles.In fact, the actual contribution of scientific research funds to the unit is the turnover of financial funds (although sometimes important, especially in universities where educational funds are insufficient).Some well-funded institutions often exaggerate the matter in an attempt to convince the public that they are well-funded, which means that their researchers are of a high standard.People all over the world know that there is no positive correlation between taking projects and actual scientific research levels.Today we also have relationship projects (commonly known as PR projects), corruption projects (mainly from industry, known as high rebates in horizontal projects) and circle projects (reviews).That kind of research funds as output evaluation units, will dampen the enthusiasm of some researchers who devote themselves to do research.Because these people produce fruitful results, but because they are not good at relationships, scientific research projects and funds may not be large, and they will be ranked lower in the assessment.This evaluation mechanism is neither scientific nor influences the output of scientific research achievements of the whole unit, which ultimately leads to a decrease in social influence.Richard Jell, former chair of the Department of Chemistry at Stanford University and chairman of the National Foundation Committee's International Assessment Expert Committee on Performance, said of Stanford's appointment.