The grand Nobel Prize in natural science has come to an end again. There are many exclamations about this Nobel Prize. When the life science prize was announced, some people lamented that the Japanese had won the Nobel prize again, and it has been 18 times so far. When the physics prize was announced, some people lamented that Donna Strickland, a Canadian scientist, had a rough fate. She miraculously won the Nobel prize only one year after retiring as an associate professor, and became the only one who won the Nobel Prize in her university. Some people sigh that Donna Strickland's elder martial brother has a good idea, but he didn't do the experiment, which made him a mentor and younger martial sister. When the Chemistry Award was announced, people always exclaimed that "pure chemistry is dead, and it has been given to people who do biochemistry again"

Among these exclamations, the most impressive one is the paper published by Strickland Nobel Prize, which was published in the journal optical communication, which is "low impact factor and can not be used for Professional Title Evaluation". This reminds me that Tu youyou's Nobel Prize winning achievements were published in the Chinese journal Science Bulletin, and Japan's Nakamura Xiuer's Nobel Prize winning achievements were published in the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and Applied Physics express. It seems that there are many cases like this, which will not be described here. All in all, the important achievements of the Nobel Prize are published in humble journals once again.

What kind of achievement can win the Nobel Prize? The answer to this question is very simple: original results. In the academic world, only the first is recognized. As for the second and third, they will be forgotten later. However, today we reflect on why our country missed the Nobel prize again. I think the following questions are worth pondering.

First of all, what kind of journal is a good one? If the evaluation is based on the influence factors, "optical communication" is a journal of three or four districts. In China, the papers of this journal can not be used to evaluate the titles of talents. It is also embarrassing to evaluate the professors in better universities. If it is a doctoral student who evaluates the scholarship, it is estimated that it can only be ranked last. However, the paper published in this journal won the Nobel Prize, and the weight of this prize will not be underestimated because of the low impact factor of this journal. Many friends have commented that publishing is the king and fast publishing is the king in society. Because of this phenomenon, pre publishing is very popular in the field of physics, and the biggest advantage of optical communication is fast publishing. Maybe in the future, we will think that a fast publishing journal is a good one.

Secondly, can important results be published in journals with high impact factors? Now it seems that Strickland's achievement is of course a heavyweight achievement. Could she have published it in nature or science that year? Personally, I think this is very difficult. There are many factors influencing whether a paper can be published in an ideal journal. First of all, the content of the paper must be to the editor's taste. If the editor does not have this level of appreciation, he will be shot directly. Secondly, the content of the paper must conform to the cognition of the reviewer. The more original the results are, the less experienced the reviewers are, and the more likely they are to be shot.

Thirdly, can the author know the weight of the achievement immediately when he makes it? Now the journals with high impact factor have been "circled", and the ordinary achievements made by the people in the circle can also be published in the journals with high impact factor, while the people who are not in the circle can not be published in the ideal journals even if they have made very first-class achievements. In particular, many original achievements need decades of development before we can know the significance of this achievement. If Strickland and her tutors had known the significance of this achievement at that time, would they have contributed to the journal optical communication? The evaluation of natural science achievements usually needs time test. We can't see a professor's paper published in a journal like nature or science and immediately evaluate the "Nobel prize level achievements".

Fourth, what kind of research should we pay attention to? At present, many people in the domestic academic circles attach great importance to "impact factors". Every year, SCI impact factors are published, which are all about the discussion of impact factors. "The impact factor of XX journal has made a major breakthrough this year" and "the impact factor of XX journal has dropped this year". In order to publish papers with high impact factors, many scholars do some "hot" research every day. In my mind, it is acceptable to publish a journal paper with an impact factor of more than 10 after others send a CNS paper. And then an important achievement is published abroad or at home, and many people do similar research as in the past. A typical case is the Han Chunyu incident. When his paper was published, a lot of people followed him and published a lot of papers. Later, it turned out that his thesis was wrong, and everyone followed the wrong wind. Then he criticized him for wasting the "money" of the academic community. It's ridiculous to think about it. Who asked you to follow suit?

Finally, are the original results important or the results published in high impact factor journals important? It's a bad phenomenon that people often evaluate the academic circles. Laymen judge experts. Their specific performance is to count the number of papers and the impact factors of papers. However, the impact factor of many original journals is very low, and the evaluation is not as good as that of journals with high impact factor. In the past, fewer and fewer people in the academic circle are willing to do original research, and the judging rule of the Nobel Prize is to only recognize the first and original, which will lead to less and less chances for us to win the Nobel Prize. Therefore, I feel that if we want to change the status quo, we must change the evaluation mode. As long as it is a real original achievement, no matter what journal it is published in, it is more important than the following achievements, even if the latter has a frightening high impact factor.

When we pay more attention to the original research work and original achievements, we will surely welcome one Nobel Prize after another in natural science through years of accumulation and precipitation.