Two Sessions | Qinghua University Technology Innovation Research Center Director Chen Jing: Improve the Evaluation Mechanism for Scientific and Technological Achievements, Let Market Evaluation Become the Main "Grader"

The government work report, when deploying the key task of “accelerating high-level scientific and technological self-reliance and self-improvement,” proposed promoting the spirit of scientists, deepening reforms of the science and technology evaluation system, and optimizing an environment conducive to original and disruptive innovation. Currently, what are the difficulties remaining in reforming the science and technology evaluation system? What is the most challenging “hard nut” to crack? Does the evaluation system need to introduce “market evaluation”? During the 2026 National Two Sessions, Chen Jin, Director of the Tsinghua University Center for Technological Innovation, provided a detailed interpretation of these questions in an exclusive interview with Securities Times.

“As a researcher who has long been engaged in the field of technological innovation management, I believe that the reform of the science and technology evaluation system has entered the ‘deep water zone.’ The biggest ‘hard nut’ is not about adjusting technical indicators but about fundamentally reshaping the evaluation power structure and shifting evaluation logic,” Chen Jin told Securities Times.

Researchers Need to Step Out of the “Academic Comfort Zone”

Specifically, Chen Jin believes that the difficulty in reform lies in breaking the long-standing “self-reinforcing” evaluation inertia within universities and research institutes, and establishing a “value closed-loop” that accurately aligns with national strategic needs and industrial contributions.

Chen Jin further analyzed that the persistence of the “Five Only” system—“only papers, only titles, only titles, only degrees, only awards”—over the past decades is because it has formed a relatively stable and operational “internal currency” within the research system—publishing papers can lead to promotions, resource allocation, etc. This evaluation system has long been decoupled from the “external market” of industry.

Therefore, the deep resistance to reform lies in the fact that it requires researchers to step out of the “academic comfort zone” and face the uncertain market testing and real technical challenges. Chen Jin pointed out that, in practice, the current evaluation system exhibits three mismatches: first, between evaluation standards and strategic needs—short-term quantitative indicators objectively suppress researchers’ motivation for original innovation; second, between evaluation subjects and responsibility bearers—current project reviews are mostly led by academic experts, focusing on technological frontiers but lacking attention to market prospects and industrialization pathways; third, between evaluation cycles and innovation laws—original breakthroughs in fields like AI and biomedicine often require long-term accumulation, but short-cycle assessments tend to favor “quick wins,” lacking patience and tolerance for high-risk, high-value disruptive innovation.

Market Evaluation Should Become the Main “Examiner”

Should the innovation evaluation in universities and research institutes incorporate more “market evaluation” from industry? Facing this question, Chen Jin gave a very clear answer.

“Not only should it be introduced, but market evaluation should also become the main ‘examiner’ for applied research and technological development成果,” Chen Jin emphasized. This does not deny the independent value of academic evaluation but is an inevitable requirement for classification reform.

The “Guiding Opinions on Improving the Evaluation Mechanism for Scientific and Technological Achievements” issued by the General Office of the State Council clearly states that applied research成果 are mainly evaluated by industry users and society, while technological development and industrialization成果 are mainly evaluated by user feedback, market testing, and third-party assessments.

Chen Jin believes that the underlying logic of this policy orientation is simple yet profound—those who use the成果 are the most qualified to evaluate it.

“Who understands whether the technology can be implemented, whether costs are controllable, and whether the supply chain matches? Undoubtedly, it is the industry,” Chen Jin said. From this perspective, introducing industry-based “market evaluation” essentially shifts the “examiner” of innovation from academic peers to end users.

At the operational level, this shift requires “real action” in three areas: First, introducing an “enterprise problem-setting” mechanism at the project initiation stage, changing the past inertia where researchers do whatever they want, and instead focusing on tackling what industry needs; second, giving substantial voice to industry during review processes— for projects with clear industrialization goals, the proportion of industry and investment experts in review panels should be significantly increased; third, establishing an “application-oriented” evaluation mechanism at the implementation stage, incorporating tangible industrial contributions such as technology maturity, market share, and economic benefits into acceptance standards, and exploring post-project evaluation and long-term tracking mechanisms.

Chen Jin stated that ultimately, the goal of deepening the reform of the science and technology evaluation system is to build an innovation ecosystem driven by both “academic value” and “industrial value,” mutually empowering each other. For basic research, emphasis should be on original contributions and academic leadership, with long-term and representative work evaluations; for applied research, the focus should be on the economic and social value of成果, making “market testing” a key metric.

The “14th Five-Year Plan” explicitly states that evaluation should be guided by “innovation capacity, quality, effectiveness, and contribution.” Chen Jin believes that among these, “effectiveness” and “contribution” are the dimensions most valued by industry. When researchers in universities and institutes treat technological solutions that solve real problems for enterprises and create real value in the industrial chain as importantly as publishing papers, China’s move from a “big technological country” to a “strong technological country” will be more solid and powerful. Evaluation is both a guiding stick and a weather vane. Let those who understand the most about innovation value evaluate innovation, and let those who need innovation成果 lead the direction—that is the core of the reform.