摘要
“五唯”是我国学术评价过度依赖量化数据的概括性表述,也是当前学术评价体系改革中难以破解的顽疾。立足于学术评价的不确定性特征及其风险,厘清同行评议的重要性以及同行专家的地位与责任,能够为学术评价改革提供一种有效的思考视角。我国学术评价“五唯”问题产生的根源之一在于科学共同体的“权力”让渡,其主要原因是我国学术评价与科研资源分配的过度绑定,而同行专家负责任的意识以及水平不足,进一步为“权力”让渡留下了空间,由此引发学术评价中“行政干预学术”、量化指标主导等不良后果。当前,构建“负责任”的评价体系、推动学术评价多主体协同改革的关键在于厘清行政权力和学术权力的责任与边界,将资源分配权进行必要下放,同时逐级明确责任主体及其使命,使负责任的同行拥有学术评价的实质性权力,以防止责权的错位以及不合理的“权力”让渡。在这一过程中,面临着若干亟待分析和解决的基本问题。
The "five-only" is a general expression of China’s academic evaluation relying too much on quantitative data, reflecting that scientific community has not played a substantive role in academic evaluation. Existing literatures have not systematically explored why and how scientific community should play a substantive role in academic evaluation. Based on the uncertainty and risks of academic evaluation, clarifying the importance of peer review and the responsibility of peer experts can provide an effective perspective for academic evaluation reform. As "an uncertain evaluation" of the quality of scientific knowledge, academic evaluation has the characteristics of exploratory, incomplete accuracy and unpredictability. The practice of academic evaluation is often accompanied by risks: incomplete and controversial evaluations become the norm;"truth" may be in the hands of a few people;information asymmetry between evaluator and the evaluated brings game, construction or operation space, which can easily lead to the occurrence of phenomena such as "adverse selection" and "bad money drives out good money" in academic market. From the characteristics of academic evaluation, peer review is more suitable for diversity and complexity of scientific research, but the key lies in the "selection" and responsibility implementation of peer experts. Selecting "small peers", high-level and responsible peer experts is an important foundation to ensure fairness and scientificity of peer review. Only such peer experts can judge the quality of scientific knowledge production most accurately. Current evaluation method that relies too much on quantitative data in China means that scientific community has "transferred" the dominance of academic evaluation to a certain extent, and mainly relies on "past" and "others" judgments to form "present" and "own" decisions at the time, trying to substitute an established external "statistical price" for real value judgments. The reason why scientific community transfers "power" is mainly because China’s academic evaluation is excessively linked to allocation of scientific research resources, and dominance of academic evaluation is basically equivalent to the right to allocate resources. At the same time, the awareness and level of responsibility of Chinese peer experts are insufficient, and they are not trusted when conducting academic evaluations with great responsibilities, which further leaves room for the transfer of "power". The "transfer" of scientific community’s power in academic evaluation leads to the phenomenon of "administrative intervention in academia", and it makes it difficult to change the status quo of academic evaluation relying on quantitative indicators in a short term. Therefore, how to fully implement the "responsibility at this time" of peer experts in academic evaluation process is a key issue facing the "five-only", which mainly involves the clarification of responsibilities and powers and the transfer of functions between different subjects. Specific measures are as follows. First, government should strengthen regulation and governance while delegate power as necessary, establish and improve supervision, reward and punishment mechanisms on the basis of clarifying responsible subjects and their missions. Second, scientific community should strengthen the sense of responsibility,truly play a responsible role, and not be an irresponsible expert. Third, academic journals and other important entities should cooperate with scientific community for quality control, and provide a platform for enhancing scientific community’s sense of responsibility and evaluation capabilities. In the process of building a "responsible" evaluation system, there are several basic problems that need to be analyzed and solved urgently, including how to change the situation that resource allocation and academic evaluation being fully-linked now, how to establish constructive and growing trust in scientific community and how to rationally use international peer review mechanism to promote the progress of China’s science and the growth of scientific community.
作者
李正风
阎妍
武晨箫
LI Zhengfeng;YAN Yan;WU Chenxiao(School of Social Sciences,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China;CASAD-Tsinghua University Research Center for Synergetic Development of Science and Society,Beijing 100084,China;Department of Philosophy,Party School of the Central Committee of C.P.C(National Academy of Governance),Beijing 100091,China)
出处
《科学学与科学技术管理》
CSSCI
CSCD
北大核心
2022年第10期17-28,共12页
Science of Science and Management of S.& T.
基金
国家社会科学基金重大项目(21ZDA017)
国家自然科学基金项目(L2124025)
清华大学自主科研项目(20191080563)。
关键词
学术评价
破“五唯”
科学共同体
“权力”让渡
责任
academic evaluation
breaking the"five-only"
science community
"power"relinquishment
responsibility
