致天下之治者在人才。在全球化背景下，人力资本在国际竞争中具有重要作用，其流动性增加能够提升生产效率，这引起了各国对于人才战略的重视，甚至说引起了世界人才大战。本研究以我国中科院与工程院院士为研究对象，选取1980-2017年入选的全体院士共计1305个非重复个体，对该群体的流动进行深入研究，主要目的是揭示其流动与科研产出现状，探究流动对学者科研产出的影响。

本研究主要聚焦以下三个方面：首先，描述两院院士群体的流动频率、流动发生率和流动时空特征，探索其流动的活跃程度及流动偏好，揭示不同地区和高校及科研机构的人才流失状况，以窥视我国学术劳动力市场的发达程度；其次，分析不同特征院士的科研产出，揭示我国一流科学家的科研实力现状；最后，探究两院院士的流动与其科研产出之间的关系，研究流动行为对个体学术发展的影响。本研究的意义在于弥补现有的相关研究在数量和内容上的不足，揭示目标群体的流动趋势与特征及其科研现状，并探究学术职业流动与学者科研产出的关系，为国家宏观科技政策的制定提供借鉴，为学术人才规划自身发展提供参考。

相应地，研究内容主要分为三部分：院士流动现状、院士科研产出现状和院士流动与其科研产出之间的关系。研究结果如下：第一，对院士流动频率与流动发生率进行研究，发现1305位院士当中，有273位进行了流动，流动发生率仅为21%，其中大部分都只发生了一次流动，且不同人口学特征的院士之间的流动发生率相差较大。就国内来讲，与长江学者特聘教授相比，整体流动率较高，但与国际流动水平相比还相距甚远。对院士流动时空特征进行研究，发现发生流动的院士当中有68.9%的院士在入选后6年内选择了流动，而最近一次发生流动的院士当中有71%的院士在工作9年后才选择流动。同时，院士在最近一次流动时更倾向于研究型大学，选择研究机构的人越来越少。就机构所在地来看，全体院士都从国外回归了祖国。就国内各省份而言，273位流动的院士当中，34位就选择离开了北京，相应地，上海、浙江、广东、安徽等地是院士流入地区；第二，对院士科研现状进行研究，发现近五年来（2016-2020年）从未发表过SCI论文的院士占比16%，且无一授权专利，同时，在科研产出影响力方面与世界平均水平具有一定差异。另外，不同年龄、学历及留学背景的院士的科研产出水平均存在显著差异；第三，对院士流动与其科研产出水平的关系进行研究，发现发生过流动的院士在Web of Science收录的论文数量、国内外专利总数、SCI论文发表数量、国内外授权专利总数；学科规范化引文影响力（CNCI指数）、期刊规范化引文影响力（JNCI指数）、被引次数排名前1%的论文百分比（PodTop1%）、被引次数排名前10%的论文百分比（PodTop10%）、影响因子（CI）和篇均被引频次（OC）等十项指标方面均明显高于未发生过流动的院士，且183位发生过流动的院士在其流动后五年内在上述十项指标上也均显著高于其流动前五年内的表现。同时，通过回归分析发现院士流动对其科研产出具有显著的正向影响。

The core of the world governance is the talent. In the context of globalization, human capital plays an important role in international competition, and its increased mobility can improve production efficiency, which has aroused the attention of all countries to the talent strategy, and even caused the world talent war. This study takes academicians of CAS(Chinese Academy of Sciences) and (CAE)Chinese Academy of Engineering as research objects, a total of 1,305 non-repeating individuals, to conduct in-depth research on the mobility of this group, with the main purpose of revealing the current situation of their mobility and scientific research output, and exploring the impact of mobility on scholars' scientific research output.

This study focuses on the following three aspects: first, it describes the mobility frequency, mobility occurrence rate and its spatial and temporal characteristics of the academicians of the CAS and CAE, explores the active degree and preference of the mobility, reveals the brain drain of different regions, universities and scientific research institutions, so as to peek into the developed degree of China's academic labor market. Secondly, the research output of academicians with different characteristics is analyzed to reveal the status quo of China's first-class scientists' research strength. Finally, the paper explores the relationship between the mobility of academicians of the CAS and CAE and their scientific research output, and studies the influence of the mobility behavior on individual academic development. The significance of this study is to make up for the existing studies on the quantity and content, revealing the mobility trend and characteristics of the target group and its research status quo, and to explore the relationship between the academic profession mobility and scholars research output, so as to provide reference for the establishment of national macro policy of science and technology, and provide reference for academic talent planning their own development as well.

Accordingly, the study content is mainly divided into three parts: the current situation of academicians’ mobility, the current situation of academicians’ research output and the relationship between the mobility and the research output. The study results are as follows: First, based on the study of academicians’ mobility frequency ant its rate, it was found that among 1305 academicians, 273 had mobility experience, which was only 21%, most of them had only once experience, and the, and mobility rate among academicians with different demographic characteristics was quite different. Domestically speaking, the overall mobility rate is relatively high, but it is still far from the international mobility level. The spatiotemporal characteristics of academician mobility were studied, and it was found that 68.9% of academicians chose mobility within six years after being selected, while 71% of the recent mobility occurred after 9 years of working. At the same time, academicians have tended to prefer research universities during the latest mobility, with fewer choosing research institutions. As far as the institution location is concerned, all the academicians have returned to the motherland from abroad. As far as the provinces are concerned, 34 of the 273 mobile academicians left Beijing, with Shanghai, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Anhui and other provinces are the places where academicians came in. Second, by studying the current situation of academicians' scientific research, it was found that 16% of academicians have never published SCI papers in recent years(2016-2020), and have no authorized patents. Meanwhile, the overall impact of scientific research output is different from the world average level to some extent. In addition, there are significant differences in the level of scientific research output among academicians of different ages, educational backgrounds and overseas study backgrounds. Third, study on the relationship between the academician mobility and research output, It was found that the number of papers collected by the flowing academicians on the Web of Science, the total number of domestic and foreign patents, the number of SCI papers published, and the total number of authorized patents at home and abroad. Disciplines standardization citations influence (CNCI index), journal standardization citations influence (JNCI index), the percentage of citation frequency in the top 1% of papers (PodTop1%), the percentage of citation frequency (PodTop10%) in the top 10% of the SCI paper, the impact factor (CI) and average citation frequency per paper (OC) and so on ten indicators were significantly higher than that of not happened in the flow, and 183 academicians with mobility experience also had the significantly better performance in the above ten measures after mobility 5 years than that of the five years prior to the mobility. At the same time, the regression analysis shows that the mobility of academicians has a significant positive impact on their scientific research output.

To sum up, this study draws the following conclusions: First, the overall mobility rate of the CAS and CAE academicians is low, and the domestic academic labor market is in the primary stage of development; Second, in the past five years, academicians' scientific research output has a certain gap with the world's top level in terms of impact. Thirdly, the flow of academicians has a positive impact on their scientific research output, but it is not the higher the mobility frequency is, the better. Accordingly, this study proposes the following three policy recommendations: first, strengthen international exchanges and cooperation, improve the domestic academic labor market; Second, improve the entry and exit mechanism of academic talents and optimize the allocation of resources; Third, change the wrong idea, standardize the mechanism of talent flow, and promote the rational mobility of talent.