Ministry of Education's Regulations Governing the Establishment of the Academic Award
2023-11-24
手機睡眠
語音選擇
Article 1
The Ministry of Education（hereunder the “Ministry”）has established the Academic Awards in order to encourage academic research and enhance academic standards.
Article 2
The Academic Awards shall be conferred on persons who have actively engaged in academic research in Taiwan, and have made important contributions or achieved outstanding accomplishments, and whose work is recognized by the academic community. A candidate who does not hold Republic of China nationality shall have been employed in a full-time position in Taiwan at a junior college, tertiary level educational institution, or an academic research institute for at least five years.
A candidate for an Academic Award is not permitted to be a person to whom any of the situations referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or in the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act pertains.
A candidate for an Academic Award is not permitted to be a person to whom any of the situations referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or in the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act pertains.
Article 3
The Academic Awards are awarded annually. A maximum total of eighteen people each year may receive an Academic Award. The number available in each different disciplinary category is stipulated in Article 6, Subparagraph 1. There is an annual quota of three recipients in the Humanities and Arts category, three recipients in the Social Sciences category, and four recipients in each of the three other disciplinary categories.
The deadline for submitting recommendations for the Academic Awards will be announced by the Ministry.
The deadline for submitting recommendations for the Academic Awards will be announced by the Ministry.
Article 4
Each referee of an Academic Award candidate shall be a person other than the candidate and shall satisfy one of the following eligibility requirements:
1. Be the president of a public or private junior college, or of a higher level educational institution;
2.Be the person in charge of a public or private academic research institute;
3. Be an academician of Academia Sinica;
4. Be one of five professors in an associated academic field.
1. Be the president of a public or private junior college, or of a higher level educational institution;
2.Be the person in charge of a public or private academic research institute;
3. Be an academician of Academia Sinica;
4. Be one of five professors in an associated academic field.
Article 5
The referees of the candidates for an Academic Award shall each complete their reference using the prescribed format and submit their reference, together with relevant publications and documents, to the Ministry before the deadline. A candidate who is employed as a full-time teacher at a junior college or at a university or as a fulltime research fellow at an academic research institute shall first be reviewed by the junior college, university, or institute where they are employed, which will then submit a report to the Ministry. A recommending unit may recommend up to four candidates in each disciplinary category and the selections shall be made by the Ministry.
Article 6
The Ministry shall select the Academic Award recipients in accordance with the following procedure:
1. A separate Review Board will be set up for each of five categories, based on different academic fields: the Humanities and Arts; Social Science; Mathematics and Natural Science; Biology, and Medical and Agricultural Science; and Engineering and Applied Science. From nine to eleven prestigious scholars and experts shall be appointed to be members of each Review Board. The Standing Committee of the Ministry of Education’s Academic Review Committee shall designate the convener of each Review Board.
2. Each Review Board shall conduct the first review after undertaking a detailed examination of the academic research and teaching performance of each of the recommended candidates, and fully discussing and analyzing each.
3. Each Review Board shall forward all the material pertaining to each candidate who has passed the first review to three or four scholars or experts for further evaluation, after which it will conduct its second review. Each Review Board will then give their recommendations of candidates for an Academic Award to the Standing Committee.
4. The Standing Committee shall review and discuss the results of each evaluation of each of the recommended candidates referred to in the preceding subparagraph, and then draw up and submit a list of candidates for an Academic Award to a meeting of the Academic Review Committee to discuss and deliberate over.
5. After discussion and deliberation at a meeting attended by at least half of its members, the Academic Review Committee shall determine the recipients using one of the methods stipulated below. The Academic Award recipients are selected based on the number of votes received by each of the candidates:
（1）At least two thirds of the members present give their approval; or
（2）More than half of the members present give their approval, and at least half of the members in the same disciplinary category as the candidate recommended for a National Chair Professorship are present and at least two thirds of those members give their approval.
6. If any Academic Award remains without being conferred on a candidate after the selection procedure, a further ballot may be cast if a majority of the members present at the meeting of the Academic Review Committee attended by at least half of its members agrees. If the second ballot still fails to result in anyone receiving the number of votes stipulated in the preceding subparagraph, the Academic Award in question shall not be conferred that year. If a member of the Academic Review Committee is one of the current recommended candidates for an Academic Award, that person shall withdraw from participating in all associated review and ballot-casting procedures.
1. A separate Review Board will be set up for each of five categories, based on different academic fields: the Humanities and Arts; Social Science; Mathematics and Natural Science; Biology, and Medical and Agricultural Science; and Engineering and Applied Science. From nine to eleven prestigious scholars and experts shall be appointed to be members of each Review Board. The Standing Committee of the Ministry of Education’s Academic Review Committee shall designate the convener of each Review Board.
2. Each Review Board shall conduct the first review after undertaking a detailed examination of the academic research and teaching performance of each of the recommended candidates, and fully discussing and analyzing each.
3. Each Review Board shall forward all the material pertaining to each candidate who has passed the first review to three or four scholars or experts for further evaluation, after which it will conduct its second review. Each Review Board will then give their recommendations of candidates for an Academic Award to the Standing Committee.
4. The Standing Committee shall review and discuss the results of each evaluation of each of the recommended candidates referred to in the preceding subparagraph, and then draw up and submit a list of candidates for an Academic Award to a meeting of the Academic Review Committee to discuss and deliberate over.
5. After discussion and deliberation at a meeting attended by at least half of its members, the Academic Review Committee shall determine the recipients using one of the methods stipulated below. The Academic Award recipients are selected based on the number of votes received by each of the candidates:
（1）At least two thirds of the members present give their approval; or
（2）More than half of the members present give their approval, and at least half of the members in the same disciplinary category as the candidate recommended for a National Chair Professorship are present and at least two thirds of those members give their approval.
6. If any Academic Award remains without being conferred on a candidate after the selection procedure, a further ballot may be cast if a majority of the members present at the meeting of the Academic Review Committee attended by at least half of its members agrees. If the second ballot still fails to result in anyone receiving the number of votes stipulated in the preceding subparagraph, the Academic Award in question shall not be conferred that year. If a member of the Academic Review Committee is one of the current recommended candidates for an Academic Award, that person shall withdraw from participating in all associated review and ballot-casting procedures.
Article 6-1
The recusal of members of the Academic Review Committee from review and ballot-casting procedures shall be handled in accordance with the following provisions:
1. If a member of the Academic Review Committee is one of the candidates currently recommended for an Academic Award, that person shall withdraw from participating in all associated review and ballot-casting procedures.
2. If any one of the following relationships exists between any member of the Academic Review Committee and any candidate currently recommended for an Academic Award, the relationship must be disclosed to the Committee; the member involved may participate in the review process but shall recuse themself from the ballot-casting procedure:
（1）A candidate is the member’s spouse, or a former spouse, or a fourth degree or closer blood relative, or a third degree or closer relative by adoption or marriage, or a person who has ever had such a relationship with the member;
（2）A candidate and a member have had a teacher-student relationship in which the teacher was the student’s advisor for their doctoral or master’s degree thesis;
（3）The candidate and the member served in the same department, institute, discipline, or some other equivalent level unit;
（4）The candidate and the member have co-authored a paper or research findings published within the past two years; or
（5）The candidate and the member have jointly implemented a research project within the past three years.
3. Any member of the Academic Review Committee who has or has had some relationship with any candidate recommended for an Academic Award apart from those relationships listed above, all of which must be disclosed, the member may choose to disclose it to the Academic Review Committee, and the Academic Review Committee will then discuss the matter and decide whether recusal is necessary.
1. If a member of the Academic Review Committee is one of the candidates currently recommended for an Academic Award, that person shall withdraw from participating in all associated review and ballot-casting procedures.
2. If any one of the following relationships exists between any member of the Academic Review Committee and any candidate currently recommended for an Academic Award, the relationship must be disclosed to the Committee; the member involved may participate in the review process but shall recuse themself from the ballot-casting procedure:
（1）A candidate is the member’s spouse, or a former spouse, or a fourth degree or closer blood relative, or a third degree or closer relative by adoption or marriage, or a person who has ever had such a relationship with the member;
（2）A candidate and a member have had a teacher-student relationship in which the teacher was the student’s advisor for their doctoral or master’s degree thesis;
（3）The candidate and the member served in the same department, institute, discipline, or some other equivalent level unit;
（4）The candidate and the member have co-authored a paper or research findings published within the past two years; or
（5）The candidate and the member have jointly implemented a research project within the past three years.
3. Any member of the Academic Review Committee who has or has had some relationship with any candidate recommended for an Academic Award apart from those relationships listed above, all of which must be disclosed, the member may choose to disclose it to the Academic Review Committee, and the Academic Review Committee will then discuss the matter and decide whether recusal is necessary.
Article 7
Recipients of an Academic Award shall be awarded a certificate of honor and a grant of NT$900,000.
A person who has previously been conferred an Academic Award is not permitted to be recommended again.
A person who has previously been conferred an Academic Award is not permitted to be recommended again.
Article 7-1
If any of the circumstances referred to below pertained to an Academic Award recipient before the Academic Award was conferred on them, the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation and if it passes a resolution approving the disciplinary measure, the Ministry shall declare the person’s eligibility to receive an Academic Award null and void, and require the person to return the certificate of honor they were given and the grant they were paid in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of the preceding article:
1. Any of the situations referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act pertains to them, and they were dismissed.
2. They were involved in a violation of academic ethics that would have adversely affected the decision to select them.
3. Any material presented during their selection procedure contained false or incorrect details that would have adversely affected the decision to select them.
If either of the circumstances referred to in the subparagraphs below pertains to an Academic Award recipient after the Academic Award has been conferred on them, the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation and if it gives approval, the Ministry shall revoke the person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient and require the person to return the certificate of honor that they were given in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of the preceding article:
1. Any of the situations referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act pertains to them, and they have been dismissed.
2. They have become involved in a violation of academic ethics and the circumstances are serious.
If an Academic Award recipient does not have the status of teacher, and the institution（or agency）at which they are employed or a related committee constituted in accordance with the law has investigated and verified that they were engaged In conduct referred to in any of the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or or the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act, the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation and if it passes a resolution supporting the disciplinary measure, the Ministry shall declare the person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void or revoke their eligibility, and handle the matter in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs.
The procedures for the Ministry to declare a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void or revoke their eligibility, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 to Paragraph 3, are as follows:
1.To declare a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void pursuant to Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, or Paragraph 3, or to revoke a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient pursuant to Paragraph 2,Subparagraph 1, or Paragraph 3: the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation.
2.To declare a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void pursuant to Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 or Subparagraph 3, or to revoke a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient pursuant to Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2: an investigation team organized by the Ministry shall investigate the matter, and after the investigation team makes its professional judgement, it shall draw up and submit a written report of its investigation to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation.
3.The deliberation procedures referred to in the two preceding subparagraphs shall be conducted at meetings of the Academic Review Committee attended by at least half of its members, and a resolution approving the disciplinary measure will be passed if at least two-thirds of the members present vote in favor.
1. Any of the situations referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act pertains to them, and they were dismissed.
2. They were involved in a violation of academic ethics that would have adversely affected the decision to select them.
3. Any material presented during their selection procedure contained false or incorrect details that would have adversely affected the decision to select them.
If either of the circumstances referred to in the subparagraphs below pertains to an Academic Award recipient after the Academic Award has been conferred on them, the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation and if it gives approval, the Ministry shall revoke the person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient and require the person to return the certificate of honor that they were given in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of the preceding article:
1. Any of the situations referred to in the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act pertains to them, and they have been dismissed.
2. They have become involved in a violation of academic ethics and the circumstances are serious.
If an Academic Award recipient does not have the status of teacher, and the institution（or agency）at which they are employed or a related committee constituted in accordance with the law has investigated and verified that they were engaged In conduct referred to in any of the subparagraphs of Article 14, Paragraph 1 or or the subparagraphs of Article 15, Paragraph 1 of the Teachers’ Act, the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation and if it passes a resolution supporting the disciplinary measure, the Ministry shall declare the person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void or revoke their eligibility, and handle the matter in accordance with the provisions of the preceding two paragraphs.
The procedures for the Ministry to declare a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void or revoke their eligibility, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 1 to Paragraph 3, are as follows:
1.To declare a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void pursuant to Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 1, or Paragraph 3, or to revoke a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient pursuant to Paragraph 2,Subparagraph 1, or Paragraph 3: the Ministry shall submit the matter to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation.
2.To declare a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient null and void pursuant to Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2 or Subparagraph 3, or to revoke a person’s eligibility to be an Academic Award recipient pursuant to Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 2: an investigation team organized by the Ministry shall investigate the matter, and after the investigation team makes its professional judgement, it shall draw up and submit a written report of its investigation to the Academic Review Committee for deliberation.
3.The deliberation procedures referred to in the two preceding subparagraphs shall be conducted at meetings of the Academic Review Committee attended by at least half of its members, and a resolution approving the disciplinary measure will be passed if at least two-thirds of the members present vote in favor.
Article 8
These Regulations shall take effect on the date of promulgation.