隨著台灣高等教育擴張的結果，如何維持高等教育的品質，已成為關注焦點。自 2005年起教育部提出「追求卓越計畫」、「頂尖大學」及建立大學評鑑等政策，將SCI、SSCI、A&HCI等國際期刊刊載與被引用次數等做為評鑑標準，促成台灣各種高等教育評鑑、國科會專題計畫申請、教育部國家講座、國科會傑出獎、國科會及教育部大學教師彈性薪資、及各大學教師升等與績效責任等，皆以此為重要標準，導致人文社會領域質疑這套量化指標能否真正代表大學研究品質？有鑒於此，本文以國立政治大學為個案探討台灣當前的學術評鑑與問題，同時引用英、美、澳州及義大利等國的人文社會領域的評鑑指標。結果指出，台灣文、理領域應分開評鑑，以「多元指標 J 重視專書與人文社會特色，如此才能真正提升學術品質與國際影響力。

　　With the expansion of Taiwan’s higher education system in recent years, the maintenance of quality has become a key concern. In 2005, the Ministry of Education initiated both the Program for Promoting Academic Excellence in Universities (PPAE) and the Aiming for the Top University and Elite Research Center Development Plan (ATU Plan), and also established a formal university evaluation policy, with a view to improving the competitiveness and international visibility of Taiwan’s universities. In so doing, the MOE established a clear link between the results of evaluations and the allocation of funds. Research performance is assessed in terms of the number of articles published in SCI, SSCI and A&HCI indexed journals, as well as citation rates and associated impact factors. Evaluation has thus taken on a highly quantitative dimension. The current case study of National Cheng-Chi University (NCCU) demonstrated the fact that despite the efforts of all concerned to encourage academic excellence, the above-mentioned quantitative evaluation indicators have resulted in bitterness and complaints from humanities and social sciences whose research accomplishment were devalued and ignored under current quantitative indicators. It is necessary to investigate other approaches to evaluation that are beneficial to both researchers and funding agencies, and find ways to properly tap into teachers’ academic productive capacity. In this paper, the authors examine the ways evaluation is currently conducted in Taiwan, and especially at NCCU, and sketch out some problems and issues with the present system. Evaluation criteria for book publications and journal articles from western countries (UK, US, Australia, and Italy) are also included as a reference. It is hoped that the study can shed light on current issues in academic evaluation, and contribute to debate on policy-making for a fair say in the humanities and social sciences in Taiwan’s higher education.