China

Governance

CDE is organized by the China Academic Degrees and Graduate Education Development Centre (CDGDC), a government-affiliated institution directly under the Ministry of Education (MOE). Participation in CDE is voluntary and free fo charge. Once CDGDC issues an invitation, institutions offering first-level disciplines with doctoral or master’s degree programs can apply for evaluation.

Operation of the exercise

The focus of the CDE includes the assessment of scholarly outputs, societal interaction, competitive grants, scientific impact and quality of postgraduate education.

The CDE assesses units within the organization based on the Discipline Catalogue of Degree Awarding and Personnel Training. This catalogue classifies disciplines into 14 domains: Philosophy, Economics, Law, Education, Literature, History, Natural Science, Engineering, Agriculture, Medicine, Military Science, Management Science, Art, and Interdisciplinary Studies. These domains are further divided into 113 first-level disciplines.
Peer review and quantitative indicators are both integral to the CDE evaluation process. Since 2002, the weight of peer review has increased across the five evaluation cycles, reflecting a growing emphasis on assessing the contribution of disciplines to society.

Following consultations and discussions, certain quantitative indicators are directly incorporated into the final assessment. These include high-level national funding, awards, laboratory platforms (instruments), and patent conversion and benefits. Other quantitative indicators, such as journal ranking lists suggested by experts in each discipline and the Category Normalized Citation Impact (CNCI), are used to support peer review. However, some indicators previously used, such as ESI Highly Cited Papers, have been discontinued in the latest version.

The CDE evaluation process consists of several key steps:

• Information Collection – Institutions submit evaluation materials to initiate the process, and publicly available data is also collected;

• Information Verification and Disclosure – The collected data undergo a seven-step verification process to ensure its authenticity and reliability. The evaluation information is published online for public access, allowing institutions to raise any objections. Any identified issues are reviewed and confirmed by the relevant institutions;

• Questionnaire Survey and Expert Evaluation – This stage involves informed peer review. Experts assess key indicators such as “Achievements in Ideological and Political Education,” “Quality of the Talent Training Process,” and “Teaching Staff,” based on quantitative data. Surveys are also conducted among students, employers, and international experts to evaluate the reputation of the disciplines;
• Result Release and Analysis – The evaluation results are published and made publicly available. The overall CDE results are presented in grades.

History, reviews and evaluations

The CDE evaluation system has evolved over time, adapting to changing priorities in higher education and research. Key revisions have focused on balancing peer review with quantitative indicators, as well as emphasizing innovation and societal contributions. Below are the main developments and changes in the system:

• Increased Role of Peer Review: Since 2010, the weight of peer review has increased, while the influence of bibliometrics has decreased. This shift led to the introduction of Integrated Evaluation on Education (IEE), balancing both approaches;

• Adoption of Integrated Evaluation Methodology (IEE): The 2021 version integrated high-quality quantitative indicators directly into final results, while others supported peer review, referred to as integrated peer review;
• Discontinuation of Some Bibliometric Indicators: Certain bibliometric indicators, such as the number of SCI/ESI highly-cited papers, were removed in 2021. Previously, ESI metrics and peer evaluations of 30 “representative” papers per discipline were used to evaluate academic publications;
• Focus on Innovation: The 2021 revision placed greater emphasis on innovative contributions;
• New Infrastructure for Integrated Peer Review: A new infrastructure introduced in 2021 supported integrated peer review, incorporating quantitative data such as CNCI and journal rankings to assist reviewers’ decisions;
• Focus on Local Chinese Journals: Publications in local Chinese journals have received more attention in the evaluation framework;
• Emphasis on Societal Contributions: Contributions to society have become increasingly important;
• Responsible Peer Review: In 2021, measures were introduced to evaluate peer review practices, promoting “responsible peer review”;
• Introduction of Special Panel Evaluation: A panel evaluation was established in 2021 for special case materials that cannot be validated through public systems, to recognize special social service contributions.

Last updated: May 2025 

Acknowledgement: Information provided by Lin Zhang.

Governance

The Double First-Class Evaluation has a centralized governance structure: it is overseen by China’s Ministry of Education (MoE), with collaboration from the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).

While participation in the evaluation is incentivised, institutions selected for the initiative receive substantial government support, funding, and recognition. Consequently, universities are motivated to participate in order to strengthen their reputation and secure additional funding.

Operation of the exercise

The evaluation of the  “Double First-Class” initiative is a comprehensive, multidimensional assessment of universities and their disciplines, with research performance being an important component. The evaluation focuses on both scholarly achievements and societal engagement in research.

Within the Double First-Class Evaluation, the scope and units of assessment encompass both the institutions as a whole and the disciplines within the institution.

Institutions for the Double First-Class evaluation are selected through a competitive process based on informed peer-review. The “Double First-Class” professional committee, which includes representatives from government bodies, universities, research institutes, and industry, makes recommendations for university selection. However, the final decision rests with the Ministry of Education (MoE), Ministry of Finance (MoF), and the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). Once selected, universities create individual development plans, which are then approved by the State Council.

History, reviews and evaluations

N/A

Last updated: May 2025 

Acknowledgement: Information provided by Lin Zhang.

Governance

The Changjiang (Yangtze River) Scholar Award is organized by the Ministry of Education, while the Outstanding/Distinguished Young Scholars program is managed by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), an intermediary organization directly affiliated with China’s State Council for overseeing the National Natural Science Fund.

Researchers are incentivized to apply for these prestigious scholarships , with annual open calls for applications.

Operation of the exercise

National evaluations conducted through these programs are comprehensive assessments that consider multiple factors, including scholarly performance, academic achievements, societal contributions, among other criteria.

The Changjiang (Yangtze River) Scholar Award and Outstanding/Distinguished Young Scholars program are designed for individual researchers.

The selection process for the Changjiang (Yangtze River) Scholar Award and the Outstanding/Distinguished Young Scholars program is based on informed peer review by expert panels. In addition to the peer review, quantitative indicators are also used to support the evaluation process. These include journal rankings, citations, patents, research funding, awards and other relevant quantitative indicators.

History, reviews and evaluations

Following the national research evaluation reform initiated around 2020, individual researchers are now required to present only a few ‘representative’ works – such as publications, projects, and other key contributions – rather than listing all outputs, as was the practice in previous years. As part of this reform, the emphasis on ‘publications’ has been reduced, while greater focus is placed on societal contributions.

Last updated: May 2025

Acknowledgement: Information provided by Lin Zhang and Gunnar Sivertsen.

Over the past three decades, CAS has set different strategic goals in its different development stages. Therefore, the research institute evaluation has also gone through different developmental stages, from primarily a quantitative evaluation system, to a dual evaluation system，a comprehensive quality evaluation system, and a major R&D outcome-oriented evaluation system. Depending on the purpose of CAS research institute evaluations at different moments, the evaluation results have been either strongly or weakly linked to the allocation of resources and had different reputational consequences for CAS institutes.

Governance

Under China’s science and technology management system, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is at a similar level to the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Education. Just as the Ministry of Education manages universities, CAS is responsible for assessing, allocating resources to, and managing its subordinate research institutes. Within CAS, different administrative departments have different responsibilities. Among them, the Bureau of Development Planning is in charge of the assessment of CAS research institutes. 

During the design process of the research institute evaluation system, the ERC  will conduct research on domestic and international practices and consult with high-level science policy experts, representatives of researchers, and directors of research institutes to ensure the scientific validity, effectiveness, and feasibility of the evaluation plan.

Given the administrative affiliation, all subordinate research institutes are required to participate in the evaluation.

Operation of the exercise

Initially, the focus was on high-level research outputs such as high-quality papers. As the evaluation system has evolved, there has been a greater emphasis on the quality of research outcomes and research impact to economic and social development.

Each research institute, as an independent unit, is required to participate in the evaluation organized by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). 

There are certain differences among the institutes in terms of types of research activities, institutional size, and disciplinary fields. In order to minimize the impact of these differences on the evaluation results, special considerations and treatments have been made in the design of the evaluation methods and the formation of the evaluation results. These include the use of common indicators, conducting evaluations by disciplinary fields, and forming results accordingly.

The evaluation method has also been developed seperately. Take the major R&D outcome-oriented evaluation system as an example. During the mid-term, international experts were invited to diagnose the institutes’ status and to evaluate the quality and technical value of their main research areas to help improve internal management and clarify core advantages. This was a formative assessment aimed at guiding the institutes.At the end-term, domestic experts provided qualitative opinions on an institute’s performance compared to its five-year targets. Annual monitoring of KPIs was conducted to observe and track the institutes’ research performance, and provided as references for these experts.

History, reviews and evaluations

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Research Institute Evaluation System has undergone continuous development and multiple rounds of reform. The reforms are primarily driven by the following factors: the national requirements for CAS, the new demands of scientific and technological development, and the varying demands from different management levels within the academy at different times. At present, there has been no evaluation conducted specifically targeting the evaluation system.

Last updated: May 2025

Acknowledgement: Information provided by Xu Fang.