Core Viewpoint - The discussion at the Shanghai Two Sessions focuses on whether the "cold bench" of scientific research can be more stable, emphasizing the shift from tracking research to original innovation and breakthroughs [1] Group 1: Current Research Environment - The current research ecosystem has rigid age thresholds for talent evaluation, which may pressure researchers to pursue quick results rather than long-term projects [1][2] - The concept of "academic age," which measures research experience from the time of obtaining a doctoral degree, is proposed to better reflect a researcher's growth stage rather than their biological age [2] Group 2: Proposed Changes - The introduction of an academic age system aims to provide clear and stable development expectations for researchers at different stages, allowing for a more diverse evaluation system [2][3] - A dual qualification system is suggested, where both academic age and biological age criteria are considered, potentially expanding the age limit for eligibility [3] Group 3: Flexibility in Evaluation - The proposal includes a flexible recognition mechanism for academic age, allowing for deductions based on verified interruptions such as industry experience, military service, or parental leave [3] - The goal of the evaluation system is to alleviate anxiety among researchers and encourage them to engage in long-term research without the pressure of age-related constraints [3]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the negative impact of the "hat" system, which refers to various talent plans and academic titles in the scientific research field, on the allocation of research resources and the academic environment [1][2]. Group 1: Issues with the "Hat" System - The "hat" system creates significant disparities in research resource allocation, leading to a focus on titles rather than actual talent and development suitability [1]. - The binding of "hats" to job titles, awards, and recruitment processes has resulted in a distorted academic ecosystem, fostering a culture of immediate results and undermining the true value of scientific research [1][2]. Group 2: Proposed Reforms - The government has recognized the need to address the "hat" issue, as indicated in this year's government work report, which emphasizes the reform of talent evaluation and the governance of the "hat" system [1]. - Institutions like Tsinghua University are implementing initiatives that support basic research without considering titles, allowing researchers to focus on significant scientific contributions [2]. Group 3: New Evaluation Mechanisms - A new evaluation system should be established that prioritizes innovation value and actual contributions, tailored to different roles and disciplines [2][3]. - The article advocates for a diversified evaluation standard that ensures scientific, operable, and fair new rules, including expanded peer review and clear definitions of significant contributions [3]. Group 4: Vision for the Future - The goal is to create a healthier academic ecosystem that promotes efficient resource flow, fair talent competition, and vibrant innovation, allowing researchers to maintain their original intentions and ensuring that resources are directed towards valuable scientific research [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need to reform the current scientific evaluation system that overly relies on academic titles, referred to as "hats," to create a more conducive research environment and promote genuine innovation [1][2][3]. Group 1: Issues with Current Evaluation System - The term "hats" refers to various talent plans and academic titles in the scientific field, which significantly influence the allocation of research resources [1]. - There is a prevalent issue where the focus on "hats" leads to disparities in resource distribution, affecting recruitment, awards, and treatment of researchers [1][2]. - The current system fosters a culture of immediate results and distorts the true value of scientific research, leading to anxiety among researchers [1][2]. Group 2: Proposed Reforms - The government has recognized the need to address the "hat fever" by including "hat governance" in the annual work report, indicating a commitment to reform [2]. - The National Natural Science Foundation has eliminated terms like "杰青" and "优青," reflecting a clear stance on diminishing the emphasis on "hats" [2]. - Institutions like Tsinghua University are implementing initiatives that support research based on individual merit rather than titles, allowing researchers to focus on their work [2][3]. Group 3: New Evaluation Framework - A new evaluation system should be established that is tailored to different roles and disciplines, focusing on innovation value and actual contributions [2][3]. - The proposed system aims to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more diversified evaluation standard that ensures scientific rigor, operability, and fairness [3]. - The introduction of peer review and clear definitions of significant contributions is essential to mitigate biases and enhance the credibility of the evaluation process [3].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need to reform the current scientific evaluation system that overly relies on academic titles, referred to as "hats," and advocates for a more innovative and contribution-oriented approach to resource allocation in research [1][2][3]. Group 1: Current Issues in Scientific Evaluation - The term "hats" refers to various talent plans and academic titles in the scientific field, which significantly influence the distribution of research resources [1]. - There is a growing concern among researchers about the pressure and anxiety caused by the competition for "hats," which detracts from genuine scientific inquiry [1][3]. Group 2: Government and Institutional Responses - The government has recognized the issue by including "hat governance" in this year's work report, indicating a commitment to curbing the trend of prioritizing titles over actual contributions [2]. - The National Natural Science Foundation has eliminated terms like "杰青" and "优青," reflecting a clear stance on diminishing the importance of "hats" [2]. Group 3: Proposed Solutions for Improvement - To create a better research environment, it is essential to abandon the "hat-based" evaluation mechanism and return to recognizing academic honors based on merit [3]. - Institutions like Tsinghua University have initiated projects that support researchers without considering their titles, allowing them to focus on significant scientific contributions [3]. - A more nuanced evaluation system should be established, tailored to different roles and disciplines, emphasizing innovation and actual contributions [3][4]. Group 4: Future Directions for Evaluation Standards - The new evaluation standards should be diverse, scientifically sound, operationally feasible, and fair, with an emphasis on peer review and clear criteria for assessing significant contributions [4]. - The article advocates for a scientific talent evaluation system that fosters efficient resource flow, fair competition, and vibrant innovation, ensuring that every researcher can maintain their original aspirations [4].