中国可以受益于重新考量评价和资助青年科研人员的方法，这一观点今天发表在《自然》杂志（Nature）有关中国科研评估环境的专刊上。该观点性文章的作者中国青年学者王传超强调说，中国有必要与其它国家一样，为新毕业的博士生提供资金和机会，以免青年科研人员外流、长期留在国外或完全脱离科研界。

       本期标题为“科研评估：放大镜下的中国科研” 的Nature Outlook专刊，缘起于《自然》杂志去年十月与上海市科学技术协会、中国科学院上海分院联手举办的科研评估体系国际学术研讨会。本期专刊内容丰富、文 章形式多样，包括了反映中国科研情况的新闻特写、评论和分析等，并采用来自该研讨会的观点和相关辩论。

    &nbsnbsp;  “科研的评估与评价是一个适时的话题，因为中国作为世界上科研论文产出量第二的大国，正在改革自己的科研评估方法与体系，以实现从重‘量’到重‘质’的 转变，并更注重科研对创新和解决社会问题的贡献。” 麦克米伦科学与教育亚洲区董事总经理刘珺女士说。

       三位研讨会与会者分享了自己对中国科研评估的看法：诺贝尔化学奖获得者库尔特·维特里希博士（Kurt Wüthrich）强调有必要更恰当地评价年轻学者的学术潜力；英格兰高等教育拨款委员会研究、创新与技能处主任戴维·斯威尼博士（David Sweeney ）比较了中英两国的科研评估体系；英国皇家学会副会长安东尼·奇塔姆博士（Anthony Cheetham）概述了中国如何通过招募和资助科学家来推动科研产量的直线上升。

       一篇有关中国科学院的特写报道则调查了这家中国规模最大的科研机构如何在科研评估中正在由量化标准和排名转向更加注重质量的方式。

       《自然》执行主编暨自然出版集团大中华地区总监尼克·坎贝尔博士（Nick Campbell）说：“对科研质量进行评估不存在‘一刀切’rsquo;的办法。我们通过这一特别报道，意在激发中国的科研界去思索和辩论什么是基于中 国特定情况并适合中国的方法，因此我们对正在经历巨大变化的中国科研拨款和评估体系进行了全景式的展示。”

       陈香美和曾璇两位科研人员在Nature Outlook专刊中讲述了作为女科学家在中国所经历的变化。一位驻香港的研究人员则比较了自己在不同国家和地区所体验的科研评估体系。专刊还另以新闻特 写形式探讨了中国在科研成果转化和产研结合等方面所面临的挑战。

转自：科学网，http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2015/4/317965.shtm

ASSESSING SCIENCE

Over the past few decades, China has enjoyed economic prosperity, driven by its vigorous manufacturing output. More recently, the country has used this wealth to ratchet up other skills and now has the world’s second largest spend on research and development (see page S8), and the second largest output of scientific papers.

Behind these accomplishments are the incentives that drive good scientific behaviour. Having lost a generation of scientists during the Cultural Revolution, the country has made a huge effort to instil qualities that are in line with those of other developed countries. These issues were examined at a symposium held in Shanghai in October 2014, co-hosted by Nature. Representatives from academia, industry and scientific societies talked about the importance of research to China’s ongoing development, and how to stimulate it (S10). This Outlook was influenced by the debates, although Nature takes sole responsibility for all editorial content.

Unlike countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, China does not have a national process of research assessment. The closest comparison is the evaluation undertaken by its largest research organization, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (S18).

Any complete measure of science must also recognize new technology, improved health and job creation — but Chinese researchers face institutional obstacles in translating their research into industrial applications (S28).

At the heart of this progress are China’s scientists, yet many of them are struggling to find their way in a system that is undergoing such extensive change. In particular, young researchers (S36) and female scientists (S26) crave policies that would enable them to make a greater contribution. Such improvements may fortify China’s scientific acumen and make the country a formidable player in global research.

Michelle Grayson

Senior Editor, Supplements