Recently, a national youth hat talent evaluation defense, several respondents informed me of the experts' questions. One of the judges asked a respondent, "why don't you cite many papers after 2015?" Other judges mainly asked questions about the major of the paper itself. This shows that there are still some reviewers who pay more attention to the number of citations. It can be understood that everyone has different requirements for talent standards and focuses on evaluation. There are always people who want to use simple methods to evaluate talents. Moreover, papers with high citation times are generally positive (except malicious citation). In fact, I think this question can be answered in a kind, modest, neutral and slightly ironic tone: "I think that the number of citations in my published papers is not completely consistent with the innovation of the paper results, and the papers with more citations may have more people doing research in this direction. Sometimes the innovation of achievements needs to go through the test of time. My own experience is indeed so. Although some papers are cited more frequently, most of these papers appear in the foreword of the peer papers as "case results" and in the "discussion part". There are few papers that have important enlightenment and comparison on the innovation of peer achievements.

As we all know, scientific evaluation is a serious matter. It is closely related to the promotion of professional titles and the "quack status" of institutions and individuals, and its importance is self-evident. In addition to the moral integrity and serious attitude of the people who participate in the evaluation, scientific evaluation is also a superb and complex thing at the technical level, which is closely related to the knowledge level of experts. Even in front of small peers, there are different opinions on whether an achievement belongs to original innovation and the strength of innovation, especially the basic research achievements. Some typical cases tell us that the emergence of original innovation results needs solid foundation and research accumulation. As zaffman, President of the Weizmann Academy of Sciences in Israel, said, "if you only ask what the research will do, maybe you will only look for those things that you know will be useful, then you can only find those things that you know you can find" (Liu Qingsheng, simple power, financial Expo, issue 7, 2018). Obviously, President weizman hopes that young researchers will first lay a solid foundation and accumulate scientific research so that they can "find something inadvertently", which may belong to "original innovation". We can imagine how such original innovation achievements can be evaluated in such a simple way as "citation times of papers".

Some managers always want to replace complex scientific evaluation with simple measures, and claim to overcome the influence of "human factors" on scientific evaluation for the sake of "fairness and justice". Therefore, we often simply use some scientometrics indicators to implement the internal talent and related project evaluation, which will inevitably lead to some abnormal and bad evaluation results. In my opinion, at present, our scientific evaluation seems to be in an "embarrassing" situation. The relationship between "absolute quantitative indicators (number of articles, reading points, reading magazines)", "moderate quantitative indicators (representative works)" and "non quantitative indicators (mainly qualitative)" evaluation measures is unclear. No matter what kind of evaluation measures are adopted, people who have the right to speak will always find out various reasons Explain the rationality of their practice.

It is understandable that the major peers pay close attention to the number of citations (citation rate) of the respondent's papers, because the major peers generally do not know much about the innovation of the paper itself, so it is inevitable to pay attention to the journals and if values of the papers published. Therefore, in some of our academic institutions, it is not uncommon for a paper (mainly referring to important journals and papers with high citation times) to win the world. However, for small peers, the citation rate of papers should not be used as an important basis to measure the results of papers, and even the if value of published papers should not be used as a basis (moderate reference is understandable). I pay more attention to the opinions of reviewers in the process of paper review, because it is a really high-level "screening" of the innovation degree of manuscript papers hired by the editorial department of the magazine, so as to determine whether the papers are worth publishing. This is also the objective basis for me to recommend young people to state the level of achievements when applying for various talents or projects. In fact, it is not uncommon that there are no peers or few peers to cite the major and shocking achievements in a period of time. Therefore, I think that in scientific evaluation, the reviewers should be cautious about the citation rate of papers.