IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v14y2005i2p103-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Bihui Jin
  • Ronald Rousseau
  • Xiaoxing Sun

Abstract

The introduction, construction and upgrading of a system of key labs and open labs are all results of a major S&T system reform in mainland China. A series of programmes extending over a period of 20 years has resulted in more than 160 key labs and nearly 400 open labs at present. Key labs as well as open labs are regularly evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. The qualitative approach, however, is the more important part. A group of experts visits the lab so that the evaluation is based not only on written documents, but also on interviews and on a visual observation of the actual situation. In this article, special attention goes to the evaluation procedures for these labs used by the Chinese Government. Evaluation results from 1999 to 2003, based mainly on peer review, were collected. A comparison is made between qualitative indicators and quantitative indicators. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bihui Jin & Ronald Rousseau & Xiaoxing Sun, 2005. "Key labs and open labs in the Chinese scientific research system: qualitative and quantitative evaluation indicators," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 103-109, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:14:y:2005:i:2:p:103-109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154405781776184
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonkers, Koen, 2011. "A functionalist framework to compare research systems applied to an analysis of the transformation of the Chinese research system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1295-1306.
    2. Qingjun Zhao & Jiancheng Guan, 2012. "Modeling the dynamic relation between science and technology in nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 561-579, February.
    3. Jiancheng Guan & Gangbo Wang, 2010. "A comparative study of research performance in nanotechnology for China’s inventor–authors and their non-inventing peers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 331-343, August.
    4. Yang, Guo-liang & Rousseau, Ronald & Yang, Li-ying & Liu, Wen-bin, 2014. "A study on directional returns to scale," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 628-641.
    5. B.M. Gupta & Namita Gupta & R.P. Gupta, 2009. "Status of China in Science and Technology as Reflected in its Publications Output, 1997–2007," China Report, , vol. 45(4), pages 301-341, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:14:y:2005:i:2:p:103-109. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.