[目的 /意义]科研评价实践中普遍使用的两种评价手段和量度工具是同行评议与计量为基础的评价(文献计量、经济计量甚至替代计量)。为了对比同行评议质量判断与计量为基础的评价结果的一致性,进而回答同行评议能否被新兴的计量评价方法取代。[方法 /过程]本文采用非实证的研究方式,收集前人在论文发表、项目资助、研发评价实践、个人颁奖以及Altmetrics计量评价领域应用两种评价方法对研发绩效测度的120多篇实证研究进行元分析并汇总成定量化综述,基于认知演化的视角进行系统记叙。[结果/结论]传统同行评议为基础的决策判断始终是研发评价的首要量度工具且地位无法取代,它与引用为基础的计量评价结果在统计上仅存在适度的正相关性,Spearman秩相关系数r∈[0.24,0.88],地位上后者更应充当前者的补充而非替代,即建构在定量辅助基础上的知情同行评议模式不仅使评价结果更加客观透明,也添加额外的附加价值,通过数据来加深对问题的认识,为评价的黄金法则。 [Purpose / Significance] Two kinds of evaluation tools and measurement tools commonly used in scientific evaluation practice are peer review and measurement-based evaluation (bibliometrics, econometrics or even alternative measures). In order to compare the quality of peer review judgments and measurement-based evaluation of the consistency of the results, and then answer whether peer review can be replaced by emerging measurement and evaluation methods. [Methods / Processes] This paper uses non-empirical research methods to collect more than 120 empirical studies of R & D performance measures collected by the predecessors in the fields of dissertation publishing, project funding, R & D evaluation practice, individual awards and the application of Altmetrics measurement evaluation Meta-analysis and aggregation into a quantitative overview, based on the cognitive evolution of the systematic narrative. [Results / Conclusion] The decision-making based on traditional peer review is always the primary measure of R & D evaluation and its status can not be replaced. There is only a modest positive correlation between it and the result of citation evaluation. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient r ∈ [0.24,0.88]. The latter should serve as a supplement rather than an alternative to the former. The informed peer review mode based on quantitative aids not only makes the evaluation results more objective and transparent, but also adds additional value through Data to deepen the understanding of the problem, as the golden rule of evaluation.