Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the central authorities have successively proposed a series of major strategies, including the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Coordinated Development Strategy, the Yangtze River Economic Belt Development Strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative, the Maritime Power Strategy, and the Innovation-Driven Development Strategy. The implementation of these major strategies urgently calls for geological survey work to provide planning advice, technical support, and information services. Jiang Daming, Minister of the Ministry of Natural Resources, has also repeatedly made it clear at various meetings that geological survey work must proactively adapt to the new tasks and requirements under the new normal of economic development, place greater emphasis on serving the country’s major strategies, enhance its role in natural resource management, accelerate the shift in development models and structural adjustments, and rely more heavily on innovation-driven approaches, striving to forge a new path for the reform and development of geological survey undertakings. This year’s National Geological Survey Work Conference proposed adapting swiftly to the new situation and new requirements by advancing reforms in six key mechanisms—and the “reform of the evaluation mechanism for geological survey results” is one of these mechanisms.

　　However, the current evaluation approach for geological survey results exhibits a tendency toward "emphasizing form over substance, prioritizing published papers and monographs over solving practical problems, and disconnecting surveys from actual service provision." This approach no longer aligns with the new situation and emerging requirements, nor does it meet the current national demands for deepening reforms in the fiscal budget management system and the science and technology system. Moreover, compared with the evaluation systems used by developed countries in similar fields, there is a conceptual gap in our approach.

　　Against this backdrop, the Party Group of the China Geological Survey organized its forces to conduct in-depth research, widely solicit opinions, and promptly issued the “Guiding Opinions on Strengthening the Evaluation of Geological Survey Results (Trial)” (hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Opinions”), which cover five key areas and comprise 13 guiding principles. The Guiding Opinions have been recognized by the industry for their role in reshaping the value orientation, value judgments, and evaluation standards for building a foundational and public-interest geological survey undertaking in the new era. This will also enable geological survey results to truly play their role in “fully supporting national energy and resource security and meticulously serving the central tasks related to land and resources.” This article will provide a detailed interpretation of how the Guiding Opinions are reshaping the management mechanisms for geological surveys.

　　 Outcome evaluation is the “key link” in geological survey management.

　　The evaluation of geological survey results is a judgment on the quality and merit of those results. The evaluation criteria play a critically important guiding role in geological survey work. The very nature of the criteria used for evaluation will determine the direction in which the key elements of the results converge. Thus, the results-evaluation mechanism is the “crucial linchpin” of the geological survey management system. It will fundamentally shape the direction in which geological survey results take form and determine the types of problems that can be addressed. Moreover, it plays an indispensable role in achieving the strategic goals of geological surveys.

　　In the past, evaluations of geological survey results have relied solely or primarily on awarding prizes and publishing SCI papers as the yardstick for success. While this type of evaluation is suitable for basic scientific research, it is ill-suited for geological survey work. It overlooks the essential nature of geological surveys as providers of public services and fails to reflect their contributions to economic and social development. The approach to evaluating geological survey results must shift toward focusing on addressing major resource and environmental challenges, facilitating the transformation and application of survey findings, and promoting scientific and technological progress as well as talent development. Only in this way can we guide geological survey efforts more effectively to tackle the pressing geological issues that arise in economic and social development, thereby better serving the cause of economic and social advancement.

　 　The “Guiding Opinions” outline the basic principles for evaluating outcomes.

　　The “Guiding Opinions” put forward four fundamental principles for evaluating research outcomes: “We must address resource and environmental issues as well as basic geological challenges; we must achieve transformation and application and provide effective services; we must promote innovation in scientific theories and advances in technological methods; and we must foster talent development and team building.” These four fundamental principles first ask: What specific practical problems has the achievement addressed? Which of the following—energy issues, resource and environmental challenges, disaster risks, or basic geological issues—has it tackled? Second, we must assess what role the achievement has played in promoting economic and social development, building an ecological civilization, and supporting the central tasks of land and resources management. What contributions has it made? An achievement that remains shelved, never transformed or applied, and fails to deliver service benefits is simply not a good achievement. Third, we must evaluate what substantive role the achievement has played in advancing scientific and technological progress and innovation—including whether it has proposed new theories or insights, and how it has supplemented and refined existing theories and understandings. Fourth, we must examine what role the achievement has played in fostering talent development and team building, and what contributions it has made in this regard.

　　These four fundamental principles serve as a yardstick and four benchmarks for evaluating the outcomes of geological surveys. They should be adopted as a unified standard and integrated throughout the entire project management process, as well as in talent assessment, achievement awards, and performance evaluations. In each of these areas, the indicators and standards for evaluating outcomes must be designed, formulated, and implemented within the framework of these four fundamental principles.

　　 Outcome evaluation should run through the entire process of geological surveys.

　　The entire process of geological survey work encompasses project initiation, implementation, and follow-up services for the resulting outcomes, as well as related activities such as talent selection and performance evaluation of both projects and institutions. In all of the above-mentioned stages, the evaluation of results must be carried out strictly in accordance with the four fundamental principles.

　　Whether geological survey findings can be successfully translated into practical applications and how effective they will be depends on the comprehensive management of the entire lifecycle of geological survey projects. The project initiation phase serves as the starting point; the accuracy with which problems are identified and the clarity and specificity of anticipated outcomes fundamentally determine the effectiveness of translating geological survey findings into real-world applications. The implementation phase and the subsequent service phase are critical: we must precisely target key issues, make rational deployment decisions, rigorously carry out project implementation, promptly translate and apply the results achieved, and provide ongoing support services. Only in this way can we produce high-quality, highly applicable geological survey findings. The selection of qualified personnel, as well as performance evaluations of both individual projects and institutions, serve as crucial safeguards. We must fully leverage the guiding role of outcome assessments in these processes, mobilize enthusiasm from all relevant parties, and work together to create geological survey findings that can effectively address major resource and environmental challenges and provide robust support for economic and social development.

　　The “Guiding Opinions” particularly emphasize that “the status of releasing phased results and the effectiveness of publicity and service efforts” should also be incorporated into the evaluation indicator system for final-stage outcomes. The purpose of this is to guide and enhance project personnel’s awareness and capability in proactively promoting, publicizing, and providing user services for their phased results, thereby shifting the focus of geological survey outcome evaluation and service delivery forward and significantly improving the practical effectiveness of geological survey outcomes.

　 　It is of great significance to strengthen the product-oriented design of results.

　　The users of geological survey results include not only governments and enterprises but also the general public and professional technical personnel. Different user groups have varying needs regarding the content and presentation style of these results. Productizing geological survey results means transforming the findings generated through surveys, monitoring, experiments, tests, analyses, computations, and comprehensive studies—obtained from geological survey projects—into service products tailored to meet the diverse needs of different user groups, enabling users to directly access and utilize these products.

　　The “Guiding Opinions” clearly define the content of geological survey results products and categorize them into two types: First, results products directly generated by individual projects, including regional geological insights, target areas for energy resources, geological theories, technical methods and equipment, basic data, and scientific research bases; second, results products formed through integration, synthesis, and comprehensive studies, including specialized reports, comprehensive maps, policy recommendations, technical standards, information service platforms, and science popularization materials. The product-oriented design of geological survey results involves tailoring these results into various service products based on the needs of different users, enabling direct use by diverse groups such as government agencies, enterprises, the general public, and professional technicians.

　　Strengthening the product-oriented design of geological survey results means shifting away from the past practice of placing greater emphasis on preparing result reports while neglecting the transformation and application of those results. Moreover, product-oriented design of survey results must be integrated throughout the entire process—from project initiation and implementation to result generation and ongoing service—so as to maximize the benefits of transforming and applying geological survey results and enhancing their service value.

　 　It is highly significant for users to directly participate in the evaluation of outcomes.

　　The “Guiding Opinions” for the first time propose piloting a system in which users directly participate in the evaluation of research outcomes. For a long time, the evaluation of geological survey results has primarily relied on organizing reviews conducted by industry technical experts, with the focus of evaluation centered on the technical aspects of the results themselves. As a result, the assessment of the direct application benefits and potential for transformative use has been relatively weak, making it difficult for the evaluation results to truly and objectively reflect the quality and value of the outcomes. Whether users are satisfied is an important criterion for assessing the quality of geological survey results. Addressing the limitations and shortcomings of the current evaluation approach, the “Guiding Opinions” suggest that, depending on the type and characteristics of the results, the scope of evaluation personnel can be broadened to directly invite user representatives to participate in joint reviews. Alternatively, evaluation methods such as user questionnaires, online reviews, on-site audits, and the provision of evidence demonstrating relevant application benefits can be adopted. The evaluation results provided by users will carry a certain weight in the overall assessment of the results. In this way, we can directly hear the opinions of user representatives, widely solicit user feedback, ensure that geological survey results better meet user needs, and accelerate the realization of practical application benefits. Moreover, this approach encourages project implementers to place greater emphasis on user needs, pay closer attention to the design, transformation, application, and service of their results products, and continuously deliver geological survey results that satisfy users.

　　 Effective alignment between outcome evaluation and performance evaluation.

　　The evaluation of geological survey results involves using scientific methods to assess the effectiveness of these results in addressing resource and environmental issues as well as fundamental geological problems, their application and service benefits, the level of scientific and technological innovation, the development of talent and team building, and their future application prospects. Performance evaluation of geological survey projects takes the project itself as the unit of assessment; through the establishment of scientifically sound and reasonably designed evaluation indicators, it evaluates the economic efficiency of project inputs, the effectiveness of outputs, and the social, economic, and environmental benefits achieved, as well as the project’s sustainable impact. Therefore, for any given project, the evaluation of results constitutes an important component of performance evaluation. The alignment between these two types of evaluation can be considered from three aspects: First, alignment at the level of evaluation criteria—both result evaluation and performance evaluation should adhere to the four basic principles outlined in the "Guiding Opinions," using a single set of metrics and standards; second, alignment in the design of evaluation indicators—when setting indicators for result evaluation, consideration should also be given to performance evaluation. Result evaluation indicators can serve as modules within performance evaluation indicators; they can be used independently for result evaluation or incorporated into performance evaluation as part of its indicators; third, alignment at the management level—result evaluation and performance evaluation should be coordinated and integrated, with efforts made to ensure that the same group of experts conducts both evaluations simultaneously.

　　Following the release of the “Guiding Opinions,” the China Geological Survey will formulate and issue management measures for evaluating geological survey results and ensure proper alignment with the management measures for performance evaluation of geological survey projects.

　 　Enhance the service level for applying geological survey results.

　　The leading implementing agency and the project undertaking unit are the primary entities responsible for carrying out geological survey projects; they are the designers and producers of the project’s outcomes and products.

　　Relevant units must earnestly study and thoroughly grasp the spirit of the “Guiding Opinions” and ensure their effective implementation in practical work. First, chief engineers and project leaders should adopt a new concept of turning research outcomes into marketable products, firmly keep in mind the “four basic principles” for outcome evaluation, and conduct comprehensive surveys and analyses of project needs during the proposal and design stages. They should accurately identify user requirements, meticulously design expected outcomes as well as the content and presentation formats of resulting products, and ensure that the finalized outcomes meet user needs upon completion. During project implementation, they should attach great importance to the timely transformation and application of phased outcomes. At the stage of finalizing outcomes, they must strictly adhere to the designed expectations, produce outcomes that fully satisfy user needs, and promptly make these outcomes available for user utilization. In the subsequent service phase, they should tap into the potential of outcome data by identifying user needs, strengthen the secondary development and utilization of outcome materials, and continuously enhance service capabilities. Second, the leading implementing units and project undertaking units should integrate the “four basic principles” of outcome evaluation into various management processes, including self-inspection and mutual inspection, field inspections, mid-term evaluations, and preliminary reviews of outcomes. In particular, they should rigorously supervise and inspect both the production schedule and quality of outcome products to ensure that outcomes and products are delivered on time and meet all required standards. Third, all units should place great emphasis on the promotion and dissemination of outcomes, promptly publishing phased and final outcomes in publications such as “China Geological Survey Express” and “China Geological Survey Report.” They should also make full use of various platforms—including online channels, thematic outcome exchange conferences, industry academic seminars, and technical forums—to organize activities aimed at promoting and serving outcomes, thereby continuously improving the level of application services for geological survey results.