A few days ago, I wrote an article "farewell, the age of SCI thesis heroes". A friend commented that "not only thesis, but also relationship" in the future. In fact, I think you may have misunderstood it. Now in my field, except for a few Chinese journals that I recognize, I really can't find any English journals that are not indexed by SCI. If you don't submit your paper to SCI journals, you really don't know what journals to contribute to. Over the years, we have all been calling for opposition to the supremacy of SCI. What is it?

1) We are against worshiping foreign countries and fawning on foreign countries. Publishing some achievements in Chinese academic journals can also represent world-class achievements. In recent years, the development of domestic academic journals is very rapid, and there are more and more high-level journals. Taking the field of metal materials as an example, transaction of Nonferrous Metals Society of China of Central South University, Journal of materials science and technology of Institute of metals of Chinese Academy of Sciences and Journal of magnetism and alloys of Chongqing University have entered jcr1. These journals are becoming more and more influential in the world. After a few years of precipitation, they may become the world's best journals in related fields. It is true that China's scientific research strength in related fields is no less than that of other excellent countries in the world. There is no reason why it is "first-class" to have to be published abroad. It's worth mentioning that they have a lot of unreasonable ability to publish papers in non English journals, especially in non English journals. For this group of people, their poor English does not mean that their work must not be excellent. It is unreasonable to evaluate the research work of this group of people only by whether they are retrieved by SCI.

2) We should oppose low-level "Repetition" and simply pursue the number of papers published. The paper is written for people to see, should be able to bring help to readers. However, now many academic papers do not need to read to know the contents and conclusions. Articles like this can be published or not, and they have no impact on the academic development in this field. In particular, it is said that in order to increase the number of SCI papers published, some people repeat a lot of similar work, change the content of a chemical element at will, and immediately write a paper. Each paper is two or three pages, and can publish more than ten papers a year. I remember hearing of a case before, an associate professor wrote a paper and submitted it to a journal, which was accepted smoothly. A month later, he submitted another paper to the journal, which was rejected by the editorial department of the journal in the mode of "multiple contributions for one manuscript". He not only did not reflect on the situation of the paper, but also submitted it to another journal. Instead, he emphasized that the two papers had different elements If a person does the same job and says one thing over and over again, what's the point? It's just like some people holding the same science and technology progress award of the East West Newspaper Association, the science and technology progress award of N provinces, and the science and technology progress award of the Ministry of education, going out and saying that they have won dozens of provincial and ministerial awards, in fact, they are all copying the same thing over and over again Now the domestic scientific research equipment is no worse than that of foreign universities. If we can calm down and think about problems, instead of publishing any results, we can make these research results systematic and in-depth, then our research results will have more weight.

3) Against academic misconduct, patchwork, modification, plagiarism data. It is a good thing to make scientific research data and publish papers normally. However, in the past few years, more and more academic misconducts have emerged in the world. Due to too much emphasis on the importance of SCI papers, many people's research results could not and should not be published as papers. However, in the "external environment", some people modify the experimental data and change the bad results into beautiful results for publication. There are also some people who put together several completely unrelated research results, and then publish them. Even to copy the results of others to publish. In this way, impetuous style of study has a great negative effect on talent cultivation. Over time, some people in the world also think that our style of study is not good, and we can see our achievements through colored glasses Science is done from generation to generation. We have the responsibility to set an example and cultivate a good style of study for our graduate students. We all do our research on a down-to-earth basis and make academic papers the inevitable result of research findings.

4) We should not blindly pursue hot fields in scientific research. Now many fields that can publish high impact factors do not need intellectual labor at all. A friend commented on some research fields. As long as he has money and employs a few migrant workers to do experiments and data, he can continuously publish papers. In this context, they have gradually mastered the "scientific research know-how", keep running with the hot fields, and keep publishing high impact factor journal papers. However, when you ask him which field he belongs to one day, you can only simply say "interdisciplinary". In doing scientific research, the research direction should be a minor change in five years and a major change in 10 years. However, all the adjustments and changes should be based on their own previous research foundation and the latest development in this field, rather than following the butt of foreign researchers to become a Nobel Prize winner.

To sum up, we oppose the supremacy of SCI, which is essentially to enable us to make research results that can win. For doctors, the result is to be able to cure and save people. For engineers, the most effective achievement is to solve practical engineering problems. For university teachers, the most effective achievement is that we have trained first-class talents. First class talents should have first-class scientific vision, first-class scientific research thinking, first-class innovative consciousness, first-class family and country mind, and first-class responsibility. We should not simply train students to be writers of thesis. In this context, how should we train graduate students? Now I'd like to take time to write about my thoughts on doctoral education.

1) In order to cultivate doctoral students, we should first cultivate them to develop systematic and rigorous scientific research thinking. Many doctoral students mistakenly believe that the doctoral period is to publish more academic papers. In fact, some undergraduates can publish several academic papers during their study, but they can only get bachelor's degree when they graduate. Some master's students publish more papers than many doctoral students. However, master's students can not say that their level is higher than that of doctoral students. Whether a doctoral student can publish a lot of papers during his doctoral period is directly related to the direction of his tutor and his specific topic. However, a qualified doctoral student should develop systematic and rigorous scientific research thinking through doctoral study. Through the study of doctoral students, they should be able to realize the research value of their project, master the core research content of the project, and solve the core scientific or engineering problems and challenges of the project. Then, through these efforts to create some new knowledge and insights.

2) In order to cultivate doctoral students, we should make them have a high scientific research aesthetic. In the past, there were some misunderstandings in the cultivation of doctoral students in many universities. For example, many doctoral students in Colleges and universities require to publish papers in jcr1 area, and there seems to be some discrimination against journals in non-1 area. As a result, many Ph.D. students have lost their aesthetic values and think that journals with high impact factor are "cattle". There is such a journal in my research field: Philosophical magazine. Now the impact factor of PM journals is only a little more than 1. Some doctoral students in China are not even willing to submit their papers to this journal. However, these doctoral students do not know the history of the journal. This journal is a very small one, publishing about 200 papers every year. At the same time, its publishing house is relatively low-key, not to promote these journals. As a result, the impact factor has not been high in recent years. However, PM has a history of more than 250 years, and it is unknown how many people have published papers on it. Moreover, people who have contributed to PM journal know that it is a very rigorous and demanding journal. I believe that this journal has experienced hundreds of years of ups and downs, and it must be inherited and accumulated. When we train doctoral students, we should let them know that although some journals have a low impact factor, they have a high level and great influence. Although the impact factor of some journals is very high, the papers in them are uneven, and there are many hydrological journals. There is little difference between publishing and not publishing in such journals.

3) To train doctoral students, we should make them proud of publishing high-level academic papers. Now the Ministry of education and the Ministry of science and technology have launched new policies, which are mainly aimed at teachers and researchers, rather than doctoral and master's students. Therefore, doctoral students should not dream that they can graduate smoothly without publishing a thesis. Not just papers, not papers. On the contrary, under the new policy, the requirements for doctoral graduates will be higher. Because, in the future, doctoral students will no longer be based on how many SCI papers they have published, but on whether they have published high-quality papers. Therefore, we should not urge doctoral students to sort out some data and write academic papers from time to time, and then rush to find a SCI journal to publish. On the contrary, we should encourage them to do a systematic and in-depth work, and then organize the work of these systems into a rigorous paper. Only in this way can the work of doctoral students be called their "representative achievements".

4) To train doctoral students, we should encourage them to engage in original and exploratory research. In my research group, I stressed to every doctoral student that I hope what they are doing now is something that has never been done before, or that few people have done. In this way, they can make some original discoveries in theory during their doctorate. At the same time, by the time they graduate, the project can be extended for a few more years, leaving room for their own independent research work. Since no one has ever done the research work of Ph.D. students, they should boldly try various ideas instead of discussing heroes by "whether to publish a thesis immediately". We want to tell them that an original discovery is far more than the weight of 10 ordinary SCI articles.

In short, we oppose the supremacy of SCI, not simply to oppose the publication of SCI papers. On the contrary, what we want in the future is to publish high-level papers and papers with original results. Obviously, this requirement is higher than before.