FILE PHOTO: CNKI, established in Beijing in 1995, is the world’s largest provider of Chinese academic information.

Currently, China is committed to constructing an independent knowledge system, aiming to break through the influence of Western-dominated knowledge and evaluation systems in academic research frameworks, topics, and discursive methods. In response to this strategic imperative, reforming academic evaluation and establishing a scientific and rational assessment system constitute a crucial lever in the new era for advancing the construction of China’s independent knowledge system and systematically enhancing academic innovation capacity.

Key development opportunities for academic evaluation

Building an independent knowledge system requires grounding scholarship in China’s own practice and developing a philosophy and social sciences that display salient Chinese features and style. In this process, academic evaluation must seize several key development opportunities.

The opportunity to transition from “following” to “running alongside,” and ultimately to “l(fā)eading:” Evaluation standards centered on impact factors and publication in Western journals have long dominated academia, placing Chinese scholars in a persistent “follower” position in terms of research agendas, analytical frameworks, and modes of expression. Reforming the evaluation system therefore entails placing greater emphasis on the theoretical explanatory power and practical contributions of research to major issues in Chinese modernization. It encourages scholars to respond to the concerns of the times and to develop independent theoretical frameworks. Chinese scholarship can thus move from “following” to “running alongside” the international academic community, and ultimately attain “l(fā)eading” positions in key fields—shifting knowledge production from merely “explaining China” to genuinely “innovating theory.”

The opportunity to establish “Chinese standards” and “Chinese discourse:” Western academic journals and prizes should no longer serve as the sole benchmarks of scholarly value. Instead, greater effort is needed to cultivate authoritative journals, book databases, and academic awards based on the Chinese language and oriented toward China’s development needs. As the value of Chinese-language scholarship is more fully recognized, its international dissemination, appeal, and discursive influence will be strengthened, laying a firmer foundation for China’s autonomous voice within the global knowledge system.

The opportunity to stimulate originality and diversity in academic innovation: Evaluation systems dominated by single quantitative indicators often encourage short-term, low-risk research, thereby marginalizing original work that requires long-term accumulation, entails higher risk, or crosses disciplinary boundaries. A new evaluation orientation that emphasizes representative works, peer review, and differentiated assessment can help foster a more inclusive and innovation-friendly academic environment.

The opportunity to deepen the integration of knowledge production with national strategic needs: A new evaluation system should incorporate core dimensions such as addressing major national strategic needs, producing influential think tank reports, promoting cultural inheritance and innovation, and serving regional economic development. This would align academic research more closely with national strategies and social demands, enabling scholarly achievements to exert substantive influence in national governance, public policy, and social development.

Three major challenges

Opportunities and challenges coexist. To genuinely support the construction of an independent knowledge system, academic evaluation reform must confront three major challenges: goal orientation, community building, and institutional transformation.

Balancing international dialogue with autonomous positioning: Global knowledge production is now highly interconnected. Maintaining China’s academic subjectivity and independence while engaging in international dialogue requires an evaluation system that is internationally comparable yet distinctly Chinese, alongside stronger agenda-setting capacity and theoretical contribution in international collaboration.

The maturity of the academic community and the reconstruction of evaluation culture: A scientific and effective evaluation system depends on a mature, fair, and self-regulating academic community. It is therefore necessary to systematically rebuild the culture of peer review, strengthen scholars’ sense of community and professional responsibility, and restore academic evaluation to a professional logic centered on scholarly merit.

Institutional inertia and resistance from entrenched interests: The existing evaluation system is institutionally entwined with resource allocation, promotion, and talent assessment mechanisms, resulting in persistent inertia and vested interests. Overcoming such inertia requires coordinated top-down design and bottom-up experimentation, allowing new evaluation mechanisms to gradually take shape and replace the old system.

Jiang Ling is from the Evaluation Research Center at Renmin University of China.

Edited by WANG YOURAN