Abstract: This paper aims to explore the feasibility of establishing a representative work screening method based on the academic recognition of the paper. Through comparative analysis of the strong and weak points of representative method, h-index core method, the subjective selection results by faculty applying for higher professional titles, and the academic recognition method established in this research (Q1 Journal-Percentile in Subject Area-Category Normalized Citation Impact, Q1-PSA-CNCI), representative works were introduced into the Z-index to form the Z_h, Z_r and Z_q-index, and the correlations between the indicators were analyzed. Compared with other methods, the number of representative works obtained by the Q1-PSA-CNCI method is more reasonable. There was significant correlation among the indicators (P < 0.05), with no significant difference in the Z_q-index among faculty evaluated for different professional titles (P > 0.05). Studies have shown that the Q1-PSA-CNCI method could help to screen representative works and was more reasonable than the number of representative works selected based on the other two methods, so Z_q-index could be used as an indicator for representative work evaluation to provide reference for the qualitative evaluation of papers. It is more reasonable to improve the review process with the participation of "small peers".