Representatives of social sciences speak about hot academic issues at a group meeting on March 4 during the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

 

The management of research funds needs to be optimized to better promote academic development, representatives of social sciences proposed at the recently concluded Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

 
Incentive system
Researchers pointed out that expenditures on scientific research are managed in a rigid and complicated way. This style of management inadequately incentivizes research and offers little guidance for the distribution of resources, CPPCC delegates said.

CPPCC members said the intellectual fruit of researchers needs to be respected and funds should be earmarked to reward them. The appropriate share of research incentives relative to total research spending needs to be further discussed, and specific standards can be established through the implementation of pilot programs, they said.
 

This practice can help to put an end to plagiarism and erroneous research while strengthening the self-discipline of academics, said Hou Xinyi, a CPPCC member and a professor of law from Nankai University.
 

In addition, members called for simplified management of research funds. They suggested scholars be more independent, which would lead to more efficient use of funds.
 

Also, CPPCC members recommended adopting diverse approaches to assist different fields of study. For applied research, sufficient funds are important in the earlier stage, while funding in the later stage is the key to basic research, they said, adding that part of the spending on large projects should be redirected to smaller ones in order to provide more opportunities for young researchers.
 

Moreover, members said it is significant to examine the expected effect before the approval of a project, introduce third-party participation in assessing its final accomplishment and make public the spending of research funds. Severe punishments must be inflicted on academic misconduct and the credit system must be improved, they said.
 

 
Different standards
Members pointed out the disadvantages of quantitative evaluation and the core journal system, saying that different disciplines should apply different means of evaluation that reflect their distinct characteristics.

Though core journals have played a great role in academic evaluation, overemphasis on their importance may lead to pretense and plagiarism, said Chen Zhongyi, a CPPCC member and director of the Institute of Foreign Literature at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He said papers are increasingly being evaluated based on the journal in which they are published rather than their intrinsic merits. Moreover, the limited number of core journals has intensified academic competition, hindering the growth of young scholars, he added.

Chen pointed out that the academic committee should endow the academic community with the right to participate in evaluation and formulate standards in line with disciplinary characteristics. And these standards can complement quantitative evaluation, he said.
 

Under the existing evaluation system, academic works can apply for an award in the first or second year after publication. However, a work’s social influence and academic value will not necessarily be apparent on such a short timescale, and five to 10 years are needed before evaluating the real quality of the work, members said.
 

 
Innovation
The value of scientific research lies in the transformation of academic achievements into tangible benefits. Members said the government, enterprises and public institutions should be encouraged to purchase scientific research results to fulfill the role of social sciences in serving decision-making and society. Projects that have received government compensation can be included into the budget for public services, they pointed out.
 

Hou recommended reforming the project assignment system to allow scholars greater freedom when selecting research subjects. Academics need long-term encouragement instead of short-term incentives, he added.

Wang Zihao, a CPPCC member and deputy director of the Bureau of Scientific Research Management at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said many provinces and institutions of higher education and scientific research have established their own award systems, and now a national award system is needed. He suggested drawing on experiences of other places to ensure objective, just evaluation of scientific achievements.

In addition, some members called for special funding to promote think tank research because it focuses on practical applications unlike science research as a whole, which is often theoretical in nature.

 

Lü Sha is a reporter at the Chinese Social Sciences Today.