A few days ago, I wrote a "farewell, era of heroes in SCI papers", and some friends commented that "not only papers, may lead to only relationship". In fact, I think you may understand the mistake. Now, in my field, apart from several Chinese journals I have recognized, I can not find English journals that are not retrieved by SCI. If you don't put your paper in SCI journals, you don't know what journals to contribute. For so many years, we all have called for the opposition to SCI supremacy. What is it against?

1) Against advocating foreign affairs, publishing some achievements in Chinese academic journals can also represent the world-class. In recent years, the development of domestic academic journals is very rapid, and high-level journals are also increasing. Taking the field of metal materials as an example, the transaction of non-ferrous metals society of China, Journal of materials science and technology of the Institute of metals, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Journal of magnesium and alloy of Chongqing University have entered jcr1 area. These journals have more and more influence in the world. After several years of precipitation, they may become the best journals in the world in related fields. Indeed, the scientific research strength in relevant fields of China is no less than that of other excellent countries in the world. There is no reason why it is necessary to publish it abroad to be the "first-class" achievement. It is especially worth mentioning that there are many old professors whose English expression ability is general, it is unreasonable to ask them to publish their papers in English SCI journals. For these groups, their English is not good, and the work that they do not mean must not be excellent. It is unreasonable to evaluate the research work of the group only by SCI retrieval.

2) We should oppose the low-level "Repetition" and simply and brutally pursue the number of papers published. The paper is written for people to see, should be able to help readers. However, many academic papers do not need to read to know the contents and conclusions. Articles like this should be available or not, and have no impact on the academic development in the field. In particular, it is said that some people, in order to increase the number of SCI papers published, repeat similar work in large quantities, write a paper immediately after changing the content of a chemical element, each of which is twoorthree pages, and can publish more than ten papers a year. Remember that I heard of a case before, an associate professor wrote a paper to a journal, and was accepted successfully. After a month, he invested in a paper in the journal, which was rejected by the editorial department in the mode of "one draft and more contributions". He not only reflected on the paper, but instead handed over the paper to another journal, he emphasized that the composition of two papers is different What is the point if one does a job that is uniform and says one thing repeatedly? This is like some people holding the same thing and things report to the Association Science and technology progress award, n provincial science and technology progress award, Ministry of Education Science and technology progress award, go out and say that they have won dozens of provincial and ministerial awards, in fact, they are the same "east-east" overturning copy Now, the domestic research equipment is no worse than foreign universities. If we can think about problems calmly and publish them without thinking about a little results, we will make systematic and in-depth research results, then our research results will be more valuable.

3) We should oppose academic misconduct, and pieced up, modified and copied data. It is a good thing to make scientific research data and publish papers normally. However, the more academic misconduct has emerged in the world in the past few years. Because of the emphasis on the importance of SCI papers, many people's research results can not be or should not be written for publication. However, some people modify the experimental data in "external environment" to modify the bad results to beautiful results for publication. Some people put together several completely unrelated research results, and published "say the West with the East". Even copy the results of others to publish. In this way, the impetuous study style has brought great negative effect on talent training. Over time, some people in the world also think that our study style is not good, and we can see our achievements with colorful glasses Science is done from generation to generation. We have the responsibility to set an example and cultivate our graduate students' good style of study. We all do research on the ground, making academic papers an inevitable result of research findings.

4) It is not necessary to pursue hot areas in scientific research. Now many areas with high impact factors can be published without intellectual labor at all. Some friends evaluate some research fields. As long as they have money, they can employ several migrant workers to do experiments and data, and can publish papers constantly. In this context, they have gradually mastered the "research tips", constantly following the hot areas, and constantly following the wind to publish high impact factor journal papers. However, when one day you ask which area he belongs to, it is only strange to simply say "interdisciplinary". In scientific research, the research direction should be 5 years, one minor and 10 years one big change. However, all adjustments and changes should be based on their previous research basis and the latest development in this field, rather than following the butt of foreign researchers to be the contributor of others to the Nobel Prize.

In conclusion, we oppose SCI supremacy, which is essentially to enable us to make research results that can be taken. For doctors, the result of getting the hand is to be able to cure the patient and save people. For engineers, the result of getting the hand is to solve the actual problems of the project. For university teachers, the result of getting the hand is that we have trained first-class talents. First class talents should have first-class scientific vision, first-class scientific research thinking, first-class innovation consciousness, first-class family mind, first-class responsibility. Instead of simply cultivating students to be writers of papers. In this context, how should we cultivate graduate students? Now I want to spend time writing about my thinking about doctoral education.

1) To cultivate doctoral students, they should first cultivate 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 take undergraduate degree when they graduate. Some master's students published more papers than many doctoral students published during their master's period, but they can't say they are above the level of doctoral students. Whether a doctoral student can publish many papers during his doctoral period is directly related to the direction of his tutor and his specific topics. However, a qualified doctoral student should form systematic and rigorous scientific research thinking through doctoral study. Through the study of doctoral students, the doctoral students should be able to realize the research value of his 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, new knowledge and insights are created.

2) To cultivate doctoral students, they should have high aesthetic outlook on scientific research. In the past, there are some misunderstandings in the training of doctoral students in many universities. For example, many doctoral students in Colleges and universities require the publication of jcr1 District papers clearly, and there seems to be some discrimination against non zone 1 journals. Therefore, many doctoral students have lost their aesthetic values, and the journal with high influence factors is "cow". There is a journal in my field of research: Philosophical magazine. Now PM journals have only a little more than one factor. Some doctoral students in China are not even willing to put their papers into this journal. However, these doctoral students actually don't know the history of the journal. This journal is a very small journal, and it publishes about 200 papers a year. At the same time, its publishing house is relatively low-key, not to publicize these journals. Therefore, the influence factors have been low over the years. However, PM has been a journal for more than 250 years, and it is not known how many cattle have published papers on it. Moreover, as anyone who has contributed in PM journals knows that it is a very rigorous and demanding journal. I believe that this journal has experienced hundreds of years of wind and rain, and must have some inheritance and accumulation. We should let them know that some journals have high level and great influence, although the influence factors are not high. Although some journals have high influence factors, the papers are uneven and hydrology is very large. There is no difference between the two journals.

3) To cultivate doctoral students, they should be proud of publishing high-level academic papers. Now the Ministry of education and the Ministry of science and technology have introduced new policies, mainly for teachers and researchers, not for doctoral students and master's students. Therefore, doctoral students should not imagine that they can graduate smoothly without publishing their papers. No paper, no paper. On the contrary, the requirements for doctoral graduates will be higher under the new policy. Because, in the future, the candidates will not be looking for jobs after graduation based on the number of SCI papers published, but whether they have published papers of high quality. Therefore, we should not urge them to organize and write some data into academic papers from time to time. Then we should find a SCI Journal for publication. Instead, we should encourage them to do a job systematically and in-depth, and then organize the work of these systems into a rigorous paper. Only in this way can doctoral students' work be called their "representative achievement".

4) To cultivate doctoral students, they should be encouraged to engage in original and exploratory research. In my group, I stress to every doctoral student that I hope they have not done or few have done. In this way, they can make some creative discoveries in theory during their doctoral period. At the same time, when they graduate, the subject can be continued for a few years, leaving room for their own independent research. Since no one has done their research work, they should be bold in trying ideas rather than on heroes "whether to publish their papers right away.". We're going to tell them that a creative discovery is far more than 10 pieces of common SCI.

In short, we oppose the supremacy of SCI, not simply against the publication of SCI papers. Instead, we will be going to publish high-level papers and original results. Obviously, this requirement is higher than ever.