Abstract: From the perspective of unverifiability, this paper begins by discussing the feasibility of academic quality being the criteria of science awards. A model explaining the probability of winning the prize is presented, in which the effect of peer reviewing not included in the framework of research tournament is considered. This makes the science reward model become more consistent with the unverified characteristics of academic quality. The effectiveness of peer reviewing for science awards in China was analyzed by taking advantage of the model. The most important conclusions include: (1) academic quality does not fit the criteria for science awards due to its unverifiability; (2) the probability for scientists winning the prize depends on the reviewing of peer scientists instead of the academic quality of their research achievements per se. (3) the peer reviewing for science awards at or above provincial level in China cannot separate research achievements with different academic quality; and (4) academic innovation is hardly the incentive target of science awards at or above provincial level in China. Most importantly, improving the effectiveness of peer reviewing for science awards is the leading policy implication.

Key words: academic quality, unverifiability, science awards, peer reviewing