If we start from the time when I graduated from graduate school in 1991 and entered the university to work, it has already been more than thirty years. In the past thirty years, I have seen many good academic results, but also felt some problems. The more serious problems include roughly two ends:
First, a benign academic ecology and environment seem to have not been established. As far as researchers are concerned, in most cases academics are just a means rather than an end. People are more concerned about projects, publications, awards, titles, etc. than they are about academics themselves. As far as the system is concerned, only a large number of "academic achievements" are published and affirmed, and serious academic criticism is rarely seen. However, the essence of academics is academic exchanges, academic competitions, and academic criticisms; without academic criticism, there would be no academics. No criticism, no scholarship.
Second, graduate students, editors, managers, evaluators, and general readers do not pay enough attention to what is academic and what is good academic. The academic community lacks a set of effective academic standards for writing, editing, and evaluation. Many doctoral and master's degree theses and published academic papers and treatises have a weak academic flavor, which is probably related to this.
In view of this, New Academic Circles has spent a lot of money and energy to develop the "New Academic Circles Academic Evaluation Standards", which it believes is a relatively complete and appropriate academic standard at present. It is especially suitable for humanities and social science research and can provide useful reference for graduate students (researchers), editors, and manager evaluators at all levels. Therefore, the name of this article is "Contemporary Gold Standard" to make it eye-catching.
The full text is as follows:
The academic evaluation of New Academic Circles is divided into ten indicators, which are interrelated, and each item is scored out of 10 points. It is evaluated in four grades: a/excellent (9, 10 points), b/good (8 points), c/qualified (6, 7 points), and d/unqualified (less than 5 points). The total of the ten scores and the compensation score is the actual result. A total score of 90 or above is considered excellent, 80-89 is considered good, 60-79 is considered qualified, and 0-59 is considered unqualified. This article can be converted into a table format for actual evaluation.
1. Research starting point, problem awareness and innovation
Examine whether the paper is developed in an academic context and background; whether it is researched and written to solve or answer an academically unresolved or realistically needed problem; whether the problem has attracted attention or been solved before; whether the problem contains sufficient motivation for writing; whether the research context, current situation and starting point are implicit or briefly described in the writing.
a/The starting point is clear; the awareness of the problem is strong; the problem has not been noticed or solved before;
b/The starting point is relatively clear; the awareness of the problem is clear; the problem has not been fully paid attention to or solved before;
c/The starting point can be seen; there is a certain awareness of the problem; the problem has been discussed before, but it has not been completely solved, and there are certain new ideas;
d/The starting point is unclear; it is not clear what kind of problem you want to solve; the problem has been discussed and solved before, and there is no new idea.
2. Quality of the question
Examine whether the question is true or false, false or false, profound or superficial, and whether there is a deeper issue behind it; whether the question is about facts or concepts; the size of its radiation surface, such as whether its radiation surface will affect first-level disciplines, second-level disciplines, third-level disciplines or a smaller scope, or the size of its impact in social reality.
a/Conclusive, profound and important issues;
b/Real, profound and important issues;
c/A more practical but relatively simple problem;
d/Irrelevant or unproblematic questions.
3. Conciseness of Conclusions
Examine the solution to the starting point problem, that is, whether a clear conclusion is reached. Whether a paper has conclusive and concise conclusions or opinions can be roughly understood by just looking at the title, abstract, and the beginning and end of the article; if the abstract only states what the author wants to do instead of clearly stating what problems have been solved and what conclusions have been drawn, this is unqualified. Literature compilation research should be based on whether it contains or may produce some potential conclusions.
a/ A conclusive and concise concluding sentence that can be seen at a glance;
b/It is easy to find more conclusive and concise concluding sentences;
c/It is not difficult to find expressions that can be called conclusions;
d/It is difficult to find expressions of valid conclusions.
4. The academic value or social utility of the conclusion
Examine whether it provides new theories, conclusions, methods and materials; whether its conclusions transcend existing cognition, the degree and height of transcendence; whether it traverses phenomena and materials to a depth; if it is not purely academic research, examine its role in social progress.
a/It has significantly advanced or expanded the research field, or played an important role in social progress;
b/Promote or expand the research field, or contribute to social progress;
c/Have made certain progress in this research field, or played a certain role in social progress;
d/ It is difficult to find the extension or advancement of academic history with a conclusion that is indifferent, and it is difficult to see its social role.
5. Freshness, comprehensiveness and effectiveness of arguments and materials
Examine whether the argument is objective and valid; whether it is fresh; if the material is old, it should reveal new meanings; the freshness is based on the frequency of use in previous similar works; the comprehensiveness of the material; whether unfavorable materials, possibilities and viewpoints have been considered or discussed.
a/There are many initial materials or explanations, and the materials are comprehensive and effective;
b/Some first-time materials or interpretations, the materials are relatively comprehensive and effective;
c/ Most of them are common materials and interpretations, and the materials are not obviously biased;
d/全为熟习材料与阐释，材料单薄片面。
6. Logic and academic theory of argument
Examine whether the conclusion can be deduced from the materials; whether the argument is sufficient and whether the inference is logical and academic.
a/quite strict;
b/relatively strict;
c/Generally reasonable;
d/The academic theory is unclear.
7. The conversational nature of the paper
It mainly examines whether the research contains subjective and objective dialogue, whether it is in dialogue with ancient and modern scholars; whether the proportion of materials, quotations and discussion in the article is appropriate. The article cannot be without citations and annotations, and it cannot be just about the material without exposition and conclusion.
a/Carry out academic dialogue based on a profound and broad academic background, with sophisticated materials and profound explanations;
b/Carry out academic dialogue on a deeper and broader academic background, with materials and explanations, and appropriate quotations and discussions;
c/ It can be seen that there is a dialogue relationship, there is material and interpretation, there are other people’s opinions and one’s own understanding;
d/ There is almost no dialogue relationship, or the entire article is self-talk, lacking materials and references; or the entire article is composed of various materials and simple retellings.
8. Article Framework and Structure
It mainly examines whether the chapters and paragraphs within the article are closely related, and whether there is a connection between time, space or logic. You should also pay attention to whether the formal requirements such as title, keywords, innovation summary (note, it is an innovation summary rather than a content summary), notes or references are complete and standardized.
a/The logical relationship between chapters and paragraphs is quite clear; the hierarchy is clear; the structure is complete;
b/ The logical relationship between chapters and paragraphs is clear; the hierarchy is clear; the structure is complete;
c/ The logical relationship between chapters and paragraphs is clear and compact; the levels are relatively clear; the chapters have a certain structure.
d/It is difficult to find time, space or logical connections between chapters; the hierarchical relationship is unclear; the structure is messy
9. Literary style and diction
It mainly examines whether the text flows from the author's writing; the strength of the literary style; whether the title and content of the article are consistent, for example, between the title and the subtitle, between the subtitle and the details, whether the leading sentence or conclusion of a paragraph is consistent with the Chinese text of the paragraph; the accessibility and beauty of the diction.
a/The text comes from oneself; the literary style is sufficient; the title and content of the text match; the text follows the order of words, giving people a sense of beauty;
b/ Generally speaking, it can be said that the article comes from oneself; the style of the article is coherent; the title and content of the article basically match; the article follows the order of words.
c/ Even if I make use of other people’s words, I also incorporate my own ideas; the literary style can be felt; the title is generally consistent with the content; the text is basically smooth;
d/Basically, it is a splicing or rewriting or translation of other people’s words; the style of writing is insufficient; the title and content often do not match; the writing is messy.
10. Difficulty of Research
The breadth of the literature is rare; the accumulation and maturity of previous research. Generally speaking, the thicker the accumulation of research, the more difficult it is; the intellectual level required and the amount of labor required; the possibility of it being replaced and the length of time it takes to be replaced.
a/Advanced or remote professional research; difficulty in data collection or theoretical thinking;
b/ It is difficult to reveal the things or meanings behind phenomena and materials, or to meaningfully reconstruct the materials, or to surpass them in breadth; there is a certain degree of difficulty;
c/Classification and arrangement of planes, average difficulty;
d/ Low-level repetition or simple combination of existing research or superficial phenomena; very difficult.
Compensation points: If the evaluator believes that the above standards are not suitable for the evaluation of the object, the evaluator can, but is not required to, compensate for the points outside the above rating range. Compensation points are also divided into four levels. This score should be awarded with special caution and specific and sufficient reasons should be stated in the basis column.
All scientific research management institutions, universities and departments, research institutes, and academic journals are welcome to use it as evaluation standards and indicators, or to write new standards based on it. All users should list it as the corresponding topic/project and allocate funds for the corresponding project/topic.
Teachers, scholars, and students from university research institutes are also welcome to share and disseminate it through online channels such as Moments and groups to facilitate the reference of more scholars, students, editors, and institutions. There is no charge for personal reference and teaching use.
About the author
Mo Luohan, real name Luo Shuhua, family name Mo Hongxuan, alias Modu Luohan, is a professor at Fudan University and the main writer of the public account of "FD New Academic World". Main teaching and research directions: Dream of Red Mansions, famous works and civilization, academic research theories and methods, Chinese traditional culture. His books include "Two Phoenixes Protecting the Pearl: The Structure and Narration of the Dream of Red Mansions", "A Close Reading of the Red Mansions", "Mainstreams of Chinese Fiction", "The Study of Chinese Narrative", "History of Chinese Prose", "Chinese Writing Tutorial", etc. In the field of "Dream of Red Mansions", the theories of "two phoenixes protecting the pearl" and "chai and dai competing for marriage" were put forward. In the cultural field, advocating "don't do to others what others don't want you to do to them; don't do to me what you don't want others to do to you; respect the strong and pity the weak, compete with each other; be open and inclusive, be honest and abide by the rules" is the core of the Chinese national spirit.
Message description
The FD New Academic Circle advocates and follows the dialogue guidelines of "discussing issues without sidestepping; presenting facts and being reasonable; following laws and regulations with good intentions; transcending positions and staying far away from motives; tolerating dissent and not focusing on the individual." This is called the "Nine Laws of Dialogue in the New Academic Circle". All messages and comments will be posted without distinction between positions and opinions, with the exception of rumors and lies that are clearly inconsistent with facts and laws, and remarks that call for violence, hatred and personal insults. If your messages and comments are not among the "exceptions" and are not released, it is not because of this account, but because they are controlled by the WeChat public account platform, or the comment limit for this article has been reached. We would like to inform everyone, thank you for your support and participation.
Machine-translated from the Chinese original 当代学术评价黄金标准 发布 (published 2023-11-06). WeChat original ↗