Experimental Technology and Management

[Significance] Since 2022， China has undertaken a comprehensive restructuring of the State Key Laboratory (SKL) system. After three years of systematic adjustment， the construction of SKLs has entered a critical stage of implementation and evaluation. This reform represents more than an institutional renaming or adjustment; it constitutes a fundamental transformation in the underlying logic of the national innovation system. As important components of China’s national scientific and technological capacity， SKLs are entrusted with the strategic mission of addressing critical technology challenges and supporting high-level scientific and technological self-reliance. However， several deep-seated issues remain， including ambiguous strategic positioning， rigid resource allocation mechanisms， barriers to interdisciplinary collaboration， and outdated evaluation systems. It is therefore important to systematically examine the internal logic and reform pathways underlying the restructuring， thereby providing theoretical support and practical guidance for the subsequent development， operation， and management of SKLs. [Progress] This study analyzes the intrinsic logic of SKL reform from four dimensions: innovation logic， resource allocation， organizational form， and spatial layout. In terms of innovation logic， the reform represents a shift from a relatively closed， discipline-based model toward an open， problem-oriented approach centered on national strategic demands. In terms of resource allocation， the reform moves beyond the long-established identity-based funding framework toward mechanisms that place greater emphasis on actual contributions， performance， and competitive allocation. In organizational terms， SKLs are no longer confined to individual institutional entities; instead， the reform encourages cross-institutional and cross-regional collaborative networks. In terms of spatial layout， greater emphasis is placed on integrating SKLs with regional industrial clusters， facilitating the deep convergence of innovation and industrial chains. The study further identifies five core reform pathways. First， access reform relaxes the traditional institutional eligibility criteria associated with “Double First-Class” universities， creating greater opportunities for non-“Double First-Class” institutions to enter the SKL system. Second， positioning reform clarifies that SKLs should focus on national strategic needs and major technological challenges rather than primarily on general academic exploration. Third， structural optimization promotes deeper integration among universities， research institutes， and enterprises. Fourth， mechanism innovation encourages diversified governance arrangements， including “core + network” organizational structures. Fifth， evaluation reform shifts the focus from conventional indicators such as publication output and project counts toward measurable contributions to national strategic objectives. Through case analysis， this study examines the restructuring practices of several non-“Double First-Class” institutions， including five universities in Hubei Province that obtained SKL approvals， Shenzhen University， which now hosts five SKLs， North University of China， which leads the construction of two SKLs， and Southern Medical University， which established the National Key Laboratory of Multi-Organ Injury Prevention and Treatment. These cases illustrate how the restructuring has created new development opportunities for non-“Double First-Class” universities and provide empirical support for the feasibility of a contribution-oriented approach to resource allocation. [Conclusions and Prospects] Despite these positive developments， the reform continues to face practical challenges， including limited governance efficiency， difficulties in coordinating diverse entities， fragmentation of innovation resources， and underdeveloped evaluation mechanisms. To address these challenges， the study proposes five practical priorities: accurately defining the strategic orientation of individual laboratories; strengthening collaborative innovation across disciplines， institutions， and sectors; implementing contribution-oriented evaluation mechanisms; aligning laboratory activities with national strategic priorities; and promoting openness， cooperation， and resource sharing. These recommendations provide a basis for the continued construction， operation， and management of SKLs. Future research should further explore the dynamic mechanisms through which SKLs adapt to institutional change and develop differentiated evaluation systems， thereby supporting the high-quality development of the SKL system and contribution systems， thereby supporting the high-quality development of the SKL system and contributing to China’s pursuit of high-level scientific and technological self-reliance.