«上一篇/Previous Article|本期目录/Table of Contents|下一篇/Next Article»

清华大学教育研究[ISSN:1001-4519/CN:11-1610/G4]

卷:

期数:

2026年03期

页码:

61-72

栏目:

教育社会学

出版日期:

2026-06-20

文章信息/Info

Title:

Chinese Peer Review in Performance Legitimacy: Internal Mechanism, Evolutionary Logic, and Transformation Direction

作者:

李欣¹ 查自力² 熊庆年³ 郑雅君⁴

1.上海对外经贸大学 人文教育与研究中心；2.上海对外经贸大学 中国特色社会主义理论体系研究中心；3.复旦大学 高等教育研究所；4.西北师范大学 教育科学学院

Author(s):

LI Xin¹ ZHA Zi-li² XIONG Qing-nian³ ZHENG Ya-jun⁴

1. Center for Humanities Education and Research, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics; 2. Research Center for the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, Shanghai University of International Business and Economics; 3. Institute of Higher Education, Fudan University;4. College of Educational Sciences, Northwest Normal University

关键词:

同行评议; 合法性; 内在机制; 演化逻辑

Keywords:

peer review;  legitimacy;  internal mechanism;  evolutionary logic

分类号:

G311

DOI:

10.14138/j.1001-4519.2026.03.006112

文献标志码:

A

摘要:

合法性是制度何以存在的依据，同行评议在中国的创造性转化首要问题是合法性的建构。美国同行评议表现出强“科学自主性与程序合法性”特征，这一模式具有意识形态合法性和程序合法性的先天基础，背后的社会机制是科学自主的价值理性与程序正义的形式理性，这塑造了大众注重评议有效性的认知模式和行为特征，同时蕴含了绩效合法性危机。同行评议在中国的移植和“回归”，表现出强“行政自主性与绩效合法性”特征，背后的社会机制是实用主义的工具理性，这塑造了大众更为关注评议公正性、独立性和科学性的认知模式和行为特征。绩效合法性是一种“有限合法性”，存在内生的“自我突破机制”。重返改革议程的新时代同行评议面临绩效合法性的延续与转型，加强学术自主的意识形态合法性和程序合法性基础，其制度化有两条路径，一是聚焦评议的核心机制正当程序，加强程序性制度建设，二是致力于评议的内生制度学术共同体建设，倡导科学家精神。

Abstract:

Legitimacy serves as the foundation for institutions, and the primary issue in the creative transformation of peer review in China is establishing legitimacy. Peer review in the United States exhibits strong characteristics of “scientific autonomy and procedural legitimacy.” This model rests on inherent foundations in ideological legitimacy and procedural legitimacy, with the underlying social mechanisms being the value rationality of scientific autonomy and the formal rationality of procedural justice. This shapes the cognitive patterns and behavioral characteristics of the public, who focus on the effectiveness of review, while also implying a crisis of performance legitimacy. The transplantation and “return” of peer review in China exhibit strong characteristics of “administrative autonomy and performance legitimacy,” with the underlying social mechanism being pragmatic instrumental rationality. This shapes the cognitive patterns and behavioral characteristics of the public, who pay more attention to the fairness, independence, and scientific nature of review. Performance legitimacy falls into the category of “limited legitimacy” and has an endogenous“self-breakthrough mechanism”. The new-era peer review, which has returned to the reform agenda, faces the challenge of maintaining and transforming performance legitimacy. It is essential to consolidate the ideological legitimacy and procedural legitimacy foundations of academic autonomy. There are two paths for its institutionalization: one is to center on due process, the core mechanism of peer review, and advance the construction of procedural institutions; the other is to advance the construction of endogenous academic community institutions and advocate the spirit of scientists.

常用功能

更新日期/Last Update: 2026-06-20