评价学术成果的标准多种多样,依据成果发表刊物的等级、依据成果的引用率、依据同行评议等,它们都有局限性,并引发了种种弊端,例如"外刊依赖症"、同行相轻和拉帮结派等。这些问题的根源在于长期以来人们一直想当然地以"学术水平"作为评价学术成果的首要标准。本文提出以学术成果的"创新力度"作为评价学术成果的首要标准,以此作为变革和改进现行学术评价方法的突破口。本文对创新力度进行界定、讨论,论证了创新力度作为首要标准的合理性、可行性与必要性,并提出建立以创新力度为首要标准的新型学术评价方法。 ; The criteria for evaluating academic achievements are known for their variety, such as the rank of journals that publish the achievements, the frequency of being quoted, results of peer--reviews, etc. These methods have one thing in common, though： they are never free from limitations, and are liable to cause detrimental results. For instance, the evaluation processes show symptoms of ＂over--dependence on foreign countries or foreign journals＂; peer--reviews show traces of prejudice and biased opinions based on interest groups. The root cause for these issues has been the long--maintained assumption that ＂academic quality＂ be the primary criterion for evaluating academic achievements. This essay proposes ＂intensity of innovation＂ as an alternative for evaluation of academic achievements, which may be viewed as a breakthrough to trigger reform and improvement in academic evaluation. This essay provides definition and discussion concerning intensity of innovation, followed by explanation of the legitimacy, feasibility, and necessity of using intensity of innovation as the primary criterion. The essay is concluded with recommendations of initial plans for establishing a new academic evaluation system with intensity of innovation as the primary criterion.