In recent years, a series of talent evaluation reform policy initiatives clearly aimed at eliminating “only papers, only titles, only education, only awards” have been intensively launched. The “four only” trend, which was once criticized, has been effectively curbed, and has played a positive role in optimizing the innovation environment and promoting scientific research activities. We also need to clearly see that compared with the demands of the vast number of science and technology workers, compared with the requirements of achieving a high level of self-reliance and self-improvement in science and technology, China's scientific and technological talent evaluation system still has problems such as “four only” not being completely broken and the “new standard” not being established in a timely manner. There is an urgent need to speed up “breaking the four” and “setting a new standard” to better play the role of a baton of science and technology evaluation. The weight of evaluation indicators must not be blurred or even put the cart before the horse, let alone “one-size-fits-all” and “one-size-fits-all” and “one-pot cooking.” For example, for basic research talents, although important, papers cannot simply be quantitative heroes; the key depends on whether they can put forward original theories, have major scientific discoveries, and open up or expand new field directions; for applied research and technology research and development talents, papers can only be used as references, focusing on the actual contributions of their innovative activities and the economic and social value brought about by them. To continue to deepen the “hat” governance of the science and education community, it is necessary to cut off the simple and direct link between the “hat” of talents and scientific research resources and material interests, and push the title of talent back to its academic and honorary nature.

In recent years, a series of talent evaluation reform policy initiatives clearly aimed at eliminating “only papers, only titles, only education, only awards” have been intensively launched. The “four only” trend, which was once criticized, has been effectively curbed, and has played a positive role in optimizing the innovation environment and promoting scientific research activities. We also need to clearly see that compared with the demands of the vast number of science and technology workers, compared with the requirements of achieving a high level of self-reliance and self-improvement in science and technology, China's scientific and technological talent evaluation system still has problems such as “four only” not being completely broken and the “new standard” not being established in a timely manner. There is an urgent need to speed up “breaking the four” and “setting a new standard” to better play the role of a baton of science and technology evaluation. The weight of evaluation indicators must not be blurred or even put the cart before the horse, let alone “one-size-fits-all” and “one-size-fits-all” and “one-pot cooking.” For example, for basic research talents, although important, papers cannot simply be quantitative heroes; the key depends on whether they can put forward original theories, have major scientific discoveries, and open up or expand new field directions; for applied research and technology research and development talents, papers can only be used as references, focusing on the actual contributions of their innovative activities and the economic and social value brought about by them. To continue to deepen the “hat” governance of the science and education community, it is necessary to cut off the simple and direct link between the “hat” of talents and scientific research resources and material interests, and push the title of talent back to its academic and honorary nature.