深入了解中国创新能力现状，对于推进创新型国家建设具有重要意义。基于《全球创新指数报告（GII）》2013-2017年数据，分析中国跻身创新型国家行列的发展历程，并将中国与创新领先型国家、其它金砖国家进行对比，以进一步明确其在全球创新版图中的位置。研究发现，伴随中国创新能力逐步提升，其对全球创新格局的影响力不断扩大，但也存在一些制约因素，如制度环境、创意产出、市场成熟度，进而提出消除创新障碍的政策建议。

The Global Innovation Index (GII) aims to rank countries using different innovation factors. This ranking list enables countries to observe their potential status according to the rankings of other countries. The countries are classified under four groups according to the World Bank Income Group Classification on the GII list. The groups are named as; low income (LI), lower-middle income (LM), upper-middle income (UM) and high income (HI). Also, every country has a score in this ranking list. In this study, the ranking scores of 128 countries are estimated using the artificial neural network (ANN). We chose the relevant 27 features on GII 2016 Report, as input data. The significance of this paper is that; it is the first curve fitting and estimation of the score processes on GII 2016 dataset. The low root mean square error (RMSE) value which is obtained in an experimental study shows that the fitting structure is good enough to determine the approximate score of the countries in GII list. The results also show that the selected 27 features are sufficient for obtaining the income score of the countries. Increasing the number of features would lower the RMSE value and enable better approximation in the curve fitting process. The final results can assist the countries in achieving long-term output growth and improving their innovation capabilities.

全球创新指数（Global Innovation Index，GII）报告是具有广泛影响力的国家创新测度报告，需要对其测度框架的生成与演化进行深入思考。本文通过梳理GII报告测度框架的完整演化过程，将其发展阶段分为萌芽期、发展期、稳定期和成熟期。在发展过程中，GII报告的测度框架展现出以下特点：一是对创新投入的测度相对完善，但是对创新产出的测度相对不足，特别是缺乏对创新产出质量的测度。二是尽管已经实现动态优化，但是仍然不能完全满足发展潮流的要求。三是在指标度量方面重视相对指标而未能兼顾绝对指标、较为依赖主观数据并遗漏了部分重要信息。四是经济体在不同年份的GII排名并不直接可比。有鉴于此，国家创新测度应当通过科学规范的步骤构建测度框架，兼顾测度维度与指标的全面性与代表性，研究设计有利于更加充分体现国家创新质量的测度方法。

Although the Global Innovation Index (GII) is a highly influential national innovation measurement report, there is still a lack of the in-depth study of its measurement framework. Owing to the insufficient understanding of the measurement framework of the GII report, the ranking results in the GII report have been widely misused. This article combs the complete evolution process of the measurement framework of the GII report from 2007 to 2021. The development history of the GII report is divided into four stages, namely the embryonic stage, the development stage, the stable stage, and the mature stage. Starting from the embryonic stage, the Innovation Output Sub-Index has conducted the measurement from multi-dimensions and the Innovation Output Sub-Index has measured beyond the economic output of innovation. Sub-pillars have also been set up during this stage. From the development stage, the measurement framework has taken information and communication technologies, ecological sustainability as well as creative outputs into account. The Innovation Efficiency Index was set up in the development stage and then removed in the mature stage. The measurement framework of the GII report is found to have four characteristics. First, the measurement of innovation input is relatively complete, but the measurement of innovation output is relatively insufficient, especially the measurement of innovation output quality. Second, although dynamic optimization has been carried out, it still cannot fully meet the requirements of the development trends such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Third, the indicator design still needs to be improved in three aspects. Because some indicators are scaled during computation to make them comparable across economies, it is difficult to fully reflect the real innovation capabilities of large economies. At the same time, the stability and reliability of the result still need further improvement due to the use of subjective data in the measurement framework. Some important information is also not covered in the GII report. Fourth, the GII rankings of economies in different years are not directly comparable. From the analysis of the GII report, three main implications have been drawn. The first implication of the analysis is that the national innovation measurement should build a framework through three scientific and standardized steps. Firstly, the goals of the measurement framework should be clarified. Secondly, the existing research should be reviewed to obtain external experience. Thirdly, a comprehensive measurement framework should be constructed through theoretical analysis to realize the goals of three “three combinations”, namely “the combination of the measurement of innovation input, process and output”, “the combination of the measurement of innovation on macro-level, meso-level and micro-level”, and “the combination of measurement of innovation quantity, quality and efficiency”. In order to achieve the goals of three “three combinations”, special attention should be paid while designing the indicators of the measurement framework. The design of the indicators should comply with the principles of “available data, rigorous logic, authoritative sources, simplified and systematic measurement, and comparability across periods and economies”. The second implication of the analysis is that the national innovation measurement should make effort to improve the comprehensiveness and representativeness of measurement dimensions and indicators. Last but not least, measurement methods that are conducive to a more comprehensive reflection of the quality of national innovation also need further exploration.

我国不断涌现的创新成果引发了国内外对“中国式创新”的广泛关注。为明晰“中国式创新”的内涵和特质，通过系统梳理其他典型国家的创新模式与情境差异，以及中国企业的阶段性创新实践后发现，“中国式创新”体现为中国企业在动态情境下产生的一系列创新模式的进阶与组合，而引致“中国式创新”的本质因素则是中国的独特情境；此外，对中国情境的深入挖掘和理论化是“中国式创新”未来研究的出路所在。

The emergence of many remarkable innovations in China attracted wide attention to “Chinese-style innovation” both at home and abroad. To clarify the connotation and characteristics of “Chinese-style innovation”, this study compared the innovation patterns, context and innovative practices of Chinese enterprises in other typical countries, and it was found that “Chinese-style innovation” represents a series of innovative patterns’ combination generated by Chinese enterprises in a dynamic environment. Furthermore, the essential factor that leads to “Chinese-style innovation” was China’s unique context. So the suggestion is that deeply exploring and theorization on Chinese context is the way to furthering the relevant research.

在国家创新能力专利指标讨论的基础上，运用全局熵值法对中国和欧洲创新型国家的创新能力进行了比较，然后对样本国家创新能力发展模式进行分析。结果表明：国际专利可作为测度国家创新能力的首选指标；国家经济规模与创新能力密切相关，中国经济的快速发展急需要创新能力支撑；中国可以借鉴欧洲国家的成长路径，实现从LL模式到HL模式再到HH模式的转变。

党的十九届四中全会以后，党的十九届四中全会以后，科技举国体制问题再次成为学界焦点，但长期以来学界对科技举国体制的认识存在分歧，因此对其理论分析研究非常必要。本文从“科技举国体制”概念由来和内涵特征入手，阐释了广义和狭义概念，并指出其具有“计划性”“举国”“政府主导”等特点，以及国家和项目两个层次的内涵特征。随后，分别探讨了“科技举国体制”在苏联、美国和日本的不同表现形式。最后，回顾了中国“科技举国体制”的历史选择，并指出仿照日本模式是当前中国构建新型科技举国体制的一种策略。