Summary

In late February 2020, China's Ministry of Education and Ministry of Science and Technology issued formal opinions on the evaluation of academic research. The two parties expressed concern at the reliance placed on Clarivate Analytics' Science Citation Index (SCI) and Essential Science Indicators (ESI) when evaluating academics, researchers and institutions. The new Opinions set limits on using this index while encouraging a "combination of qualitative and quantitative comprehensive evaluation methods" to assess research based on its "scientific spirit, innovation quality and service contribution".

In the Opinions, the MoE and MoST point out that indicators related to papers included in the SCI index have become core indicators of performance when assessing academics' performance, evaluating disciplines, applying for promotions and allocating resources. They regard the over-pursuit of SCI-indexed papers as distorting science and technological innovation in Chinese universities.

The Opinions cover several types of assessment, with broadly similar prescriptions for each. Academic peer evaluation should be based on expert evaluation and "not simply replace professional judgment with the relevant indicators of SCI papers". Project evaluation should "focus on the innovation and significance of representative achievements" rather than just indicators related to SCI-indexed papers. Evaluation of departments and HEIs should "select quantitative indicators prudently" and should not use SCI indicators as the direct basis for evaluation; departments and HEIs should also avoid publicising their performance based on these indicators or in rankings with these indicators as the core. Promotions and employment of academics should "refine the role of papers in the evaluation" and in particular should not set essential conditions based on SCI metrics. Awarding of degrees should not require the publication of a minimum number of SCI-indexed papers (this is currently a common requirement for PhDs). And perhaps most importantly, all policies incentivising researchers based on their publications' SCI/ESI metrics should be cancelled.

Analysis by Kevin Prest, Senior Analyst, British Council International Education Services

Researchers and universities in China currently pay great attention to their papers' metrics in indexes like SCI. This is a common trend globally and many commentators agree that it has a negative effect on scientific output, as it encourages researchers to focus on publication and citations rather than innovation. The effect is especially pronounced in China as many universities pay large bonuses to academics who publish papers in high-impact journals.

The new policy encourages universities to rely more on professional judgement and research results rather than simply looking at impact factors and citation numbers, and will be reflected in changes to the detailed evaluation policies of various universities and departments over the next few years. However, quantitative indicators will still continue to be important. The guidance calls for more careful selection of these indicators rather than abandoning them completely, and it is also worth noting that the various prohibitions refer specifically refer to SCI/ESI indicators rather than to metrics more broadly.

The new policy will affect the goals of Chinese universities and academics involved in joint research projects with UK institutions. The demand for publications will not go away, but we can expect partners to place less emphasis on SCI metrics when publishing papers and planning projects.

Source

Ministry of Education / Ministry of Science & Technology - Opinions on standardising the use of SCI indicators in higher education institutions (in Chinese): http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A16/moe_784/202002/t20200223_423334.htm