Many scholars point out the disorderly state of the evaluation mechanism for humanities and social sciences but hold different opinions on the root cause. It is essential to identify real problems in order to improve academic evaluation.

Traditionally, academic research in China lacked any formal academic evaluation. The value of a treatise and the status of a scholar depended on the assessments of individual peers. This form of evaluation is unscientific because it tended to be biased by the  personal feelings of a scholar toward his or her colleagues and did not need to consider moral hazards or social responsibility.
 

The traditional approach is a double-edged sword in terms of effects. On one hand, experience and instincts indicate the significance of peers in evaluating the value of academic achievements. On the other hand, the process is greatly influenced by traditional political and social systems.
 

Traditional social relations are founded on blood lineage and hierarchical structure in line with which systems were established. As a result, informal peer-to-peer evaluations are inevitably influenced by interpersonal, consanguineous, geographic, occupational and even interest relationships. In this sense, the modern academic evaluation system marks progress in history.
 

By contrast, the modern evaluation system features a set of explicit norms about the evaluators, targets, standards, procedures and even sanctions. However, despite its contribution to academic evaluation, the modern scientific approach has also shown potential for abuse. In particular, the intervention of forces that are irrelevant to academics will eventually lead to disorder in academic production and lower quality.
 

One reason for the disorder is the leading role of administrative departments. The modern evaluation system of China did not come into being spontaneously but was introduced from the West in response to the dire need for intellectual wisdom to guide talent selection and resource allocation as the Chinese economy and society developed. Thus, one important task of academic evaluation is to satisfy the requirements of resource allocation and enhance the performance of the departments of scientific research management.
 

Some departments designate administrative staff to directly participate in or take charge of the evaluation, while other departments develop evaluation criteria to exert influence on the evaluation. In addition, other problems, such as mandatory methodology, opaque activities, stagnant institutional construction and authoritarian standards, have also exacerbated the disorder.
 

Another main reason is an excessive reliance on the quantitative approach. In recent years, China has received much criticism of its academic evaluation, while its economy has developed rapidly.
 

On  one hand, economic growth needs a large amount of talent and scientific achievements. On the other hand, enormous wealth has been accumulated in economic development. And there has been an increase in scientific research investment, which is a significant way to contribute to society in return. Thus, large-scale academic evaluation should be conducted in a short time to offer advice on how to select quality personnel, appraise scientific achievements and assess investment projects.
 

It is in this context that the modern evaluation system, which is composed of a set of criteria and procedures, became popular. Nonetheless, its implementation is the responsibility of administrative departments at different levels.
 

For these administrative departments, efficiency is the top principle. The easiest and most practicable way to maintain efficiency is to turn all factors into indicators and then quantify the indicators in accordance with complicated procedures. Thus the process of making evaluation and choices boils down to comparison, calculation and totaling of figures.
 

Gradually, the approach of quantitative management has been widely adopted and even applied to every aspect and link of management, including academic production and evaluation. This is the reason why the quantitative approach has rapidly come to dominate the Chinese academic evaluation system.
 

Apart from the aforementioned two reasons, there are other problems in this area. The purposes, evaluators and methodologies can also affect whether the results of evaluation are just and reasonable.
In this sense, the entire scientific research system needs further reform and improvement. It is even fair to say that new institutional arrangements should be designed to end the disorderly state of academic evaluation.
 

At the national level, boundaries between the nation and society should be clearly defined as public rights become more involved in the process. In this way, the government can better play its role as a supervisor. At the social level, a powerful academic community should be built to provide relatively independent room for academic evaluation and development.
 

The article is translated from the People’s Daily. Ye Juanli is a professor from the School of Political Science and Public Administration at Wuhan University.