All publication are peer-review
Peer review will take the from of double-blind review Judge objectively and impartially
There is no conflict of interest for the reviewer
Review articles shall be kept strictly confidential prior to publication

"New Quality Productive Forces and High-level Science & Technology Self-Reliance and Self-Strengthening" Column

The Innovation Clock Model: A New Model for Describing the  Patterns of Innovation Processes 

—Strategic Implications of International Innovation System Transformation for China's Self-reliance and Self-improvement in Science and  Technology 

Chen Ning1, 2 , Zhang Miao1, 2

(1.National Innovation Center par Excellence, Nanjing 210000, China; 2.Jiangsu Industrial Technology Research Institute, Nanjing 210000, China)

Abstract: Against the backdrop of China's pursuit of high-level sci-tech self-reliance, the structural mismatch between scientific innovation and industrial innovation has long been a  prominent bottleneck restricting high-quality development. The traditional linear innovation  paradigm represented by the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) model oversimplifies the complex, nonlinear nature of the innovation process, leading to fragmented links across the innovation chain, misallocation of key factors, and chronically low commercialization rate of scientific  achievements. To address this dilemma and construct a theoretical framework that accurately reflects the patterns of the innovation process covering all links and factors, this paper originally  proposes the Innovation Clock Model and systematically verifies its explanatory power combined  with international policy practices and cross-country comparative analysis. Adopting the analogical construction method, the study takes the clock as a spatial mapping  of the innovation process and deconstructs innovation into a closed-loop system consisting of six  core links—science, technology, engineering, process, scenario, and market. It further identifies  knowledge, capital, and talent as three core driving factors, and introduces iteration as the core  evolution mechanism, forming a three-dimensional analytical framework of "scale-link, pointerfactor, date window-iteration". On this basis, the study adopts historical analysis to sort out the  three-stage evolution of the US innovation paradigm from linear to closed-loop after World War  II, employs comparative research to analyze Sino-US differences in R&D input scale, structure, and capability dimensions, and uses typical industrial cases to verify the practical explanatory  power of the model. The research findings are as follows. First, the Innovation Clock Model reveals three internal operation mechanisms: two-way interaction between innovation links, dynamic adaptation  between factors and links, and spiral upgrading through continuous iteration. It effectively  breaks through the systematic limitations of linear models and presents the nonlinear, closedloop, and iterative characteristics of innovation more authentically. Second, the five institutional  shifts proposed in the 2026 White House report Science: A New Golden Age are highly consistent with the core dimensions of the Innovation Clock Model, verifying that the law of closedloop innovation is becoming a policy consensus among major global innovation entities. Third, the essence of international sci-tech competition has shifted from competition on single technological breakthroughs to competition on the organizational capacity of innovation systems. China  enjoys a whole-chain advantage in engineering and manufacturing links, but still has shortcomings in basic research originality and high-end factor agglomeration. Finally, based on the theoretical framework, the paper puts forward systematic policy suggestions from nine dimensions  covering paradigm transformation, subject strengthening, demand traction, and governance improvement. This study breaks through the theoretical limitations of the traditional linear innovation  paradigm, enriches the theoretical system of innovation process research, and provides a new  analytical perspective for understanding the internal synergy mechanism between science and industry. The conclusions can provide methodological guidance for national sci-tech planning, innovation policy formulation, and enterprise innovation practice, and have important practical reference value for improving the overall efficiency of the national innovation system.

Key words: Innovation Clock Model; scientific and technological innovation; industrial innovation; closed-loop innovation; science and technology governance; innovation paradigm; innovation system; self-reliance and self-improvement in science and technology