CASS sets up criteria for academic evaluation
The First National Summit on Evaluation of Humanities and Social Sciences took place at the Great Hall of People in
More than 120 scholars from different parts of
Organized by the
“Scientific academic evaluation will promote the flourishing of philosophy and the social sciences,” said CASS Vice President Zhang Jiang. Zhang is also taking the position of deputy director for CECHSS.
At the forum, CECHSS released the Evaluation Report on Academic Journals of Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences and the Comprehensive Evaluation Indicators for Academic Journals of Chinese Humanities and Social Sciences.
Zhang said that the construction of a humanities and social sciences evaluation system with Chinese characteristics is in line with the major strategic task of building an innovation system in philosophy and the social sciences proposed by the 18th Central Committee of the CPC.
Gao Xiang, secretary-general of CASS, director of CECHSS, said that the country’s philosophical and social sciences discourse relies on an innovation system with Chinese characteristics so that research works that embody the national values and Chinese perspectives can be published. To achieve this ambitious goal, it is essential for the nation to set academic standards and conduct academic evaluation.
He added that CASS stands at the frontier of Chinese philosophy and social sciences studies, so it is obliged to construct an evaluation system tailored to meet China’s needs. The establishment of CECHSS was part of that strategic plan. It has produced preliminary results and more detailed discipline reports will be released next year.
Following Marxist ideology
Zhang said we must adhere to the correct political orientation and evaluation guidance when strengthening the evaluation of the humanities and social sciences.
“Evaluation can’t be just for its own sake, nor should it be self-evaluation, liberal or neutral,” said Li Jie, president of the Qiushi Journal. It is necessary to make sure that all evaluation standards reflect the correct political and academic orientation, he added.
Gao Jiajian, director of the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, said that the evaluation of philosophy and social sciences should adhere to Marxism and the latest achievements in adapting Marxism to
He added that evaluation should adhere to academic standards to promote the prosperity and development of philosophy and social sciences in contemporary
“The establishment of evaluation indicators and the construction of evaluation systems should demonstrate such a requirement,” Gao said.
The Comprehensive Evaluation Indicators have listed ideology in it. The comprehensive evaluation indicator system consists of a fivegrade index including three primary indicators (“attractiveness,” “management,” “impact”), 12 secondary indicators, and 36 tertiary indicators. Under “management,” there is the category “value orientation,” which reviews the journal’s content and its guidance of public opinion.
It should represent positive values, spread advanced culture while promoting social progressand economic development under socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Quantitative vs. qualitative
“In order to get more subsidies, some scholars split a 30,000-word essay and published it in three different places,” one research manager at the forum complained.
He said as a research manager, his biggest headache is the “assessment.” Simple quantitative evaluation, he said, can lead to a number of problems, such as too much emphasis on quantity, not quality, and focusing on external form rather than content. This over-emphasis on quantitative evaluation has caused a lot of criticism in academia.
“We cannot interpret academic evaluation as simple grading,” Gao said, adding that high-level evaluation should help indentify the root and future direction of the academic research. It should be a proper integration of quantitative assessment and qualitative assessment that not only answers “yes or no” questions but also “why” questions, which requires a lot of hard work and innovative exploration.
Scholars at the forum applauded the innovations introduced by the Comprehensive Evaluation Indicators, which lists three qualitative indicators: experts, editors and targeted readers. Some commented that this reflects a multi-level and multifaceted perspective on journal evaluation and enhancing the role of peer review.
At the same time, it did not downplay the role of quantitative evaluation and included many necessary indicators, presenting a well-balanced combination of qualitative assessment, peer review and quantitative indicators.
Another highlight in the Comprehensive Evaluation Indicators is that it introduces a penalty points system with an “academic misconduct” indicator. Communication channels, websites and open access are also measured.
CECHSS applied the indicator system to evaluate 733 Chinese academic journals of humanities and social sciences and divided them into four categories based on their points: top journals, authoritative journals, core journals and extended journals.
According to the principle that there should be one top journal and five or fewer authoritative journals for each discipline, it listed a total of 17 top journals, 40 authoritative journals, 430 and 246 core journals and extended journals. Social Sciences in China, Qiushi Journal, Economic Research Journal and Management World were listed as top journals in their respective fields.
The Chinese version appeared in Chinese Social Sciences Today, No. 673, Nov.24, 2014
The Chinese link is: http://sscp.cssn.cn/zdtj/201411/t20141124_1412151.html
Translated by Yang Xue
Revised by Justin Ward