Speaking of my understanding of SCI, I must first go back to the stage of graduate school in China.Around 2000, the school seemed to have a policy to reward thousands to 10,000 yuan for publishing an SCI paper.At that time, SCI seemed to be something new, and everyone knew it was mysterious and felt a little out of reach.I remember when my seniors discussed the review of the National Fund, saying that if two funds were well labeled, the previous tender would list 20 core domestic journals and the latter only 3 SCI journals.In the face of PKs in both cases, the review committee usually leaves the opportunity to the latter without hesitation, indicating the preference for SCI at the time.Sometimes I wonder why the Chinese admire SCI so much, simply because we seem to have lost confidence in our current standards of scientific evaluation and have to introduce foreign advanced standards (especially the United States).
Later, I went to Hong Kong to study for a Ph.D. degree, and my understanding of SCI grew deeper.At that time, SCI seemed to be an important indicator of Hong Kong's university evaluation.Whether it's a professor, graduate student or research assistant (RA), SCI is the only one who's looking forward to it.I remember a young assistant professor who, although he had not received the fund at that time, paid HK$20,000 a month from his salary to do research in order to complete the thesis target of the Institute.Speaking of doing RA in Hong Kong, between the 1990s and 2000, professors in China generally received very low wages, which was only 100,000 yuan a year for Changjiang scholars.In Hong Kong, research assistants (RA), research fellows (RF), and visiting professors were paid between 10,000 and 30,000 yuan a month, which was equivalent to the salary of ordinary associate professors for almost a year.At that time, the "northwest army" and "northeast army" were popular in our community, because of the gap between the salaries of teachers in northwestern and north-east colleges and universities in the south.Of course, with "high" wages, is to live, in fact, or SCI thesis.In general, China can be invited to go to a certain degree, in terms of research ability, writing a few SCI papers is more than enough, the lack of Chinese professors at that time, and frankly speaking, compared to Hong Kong professors.Since Hong Kong has the strongest internationalization in the whole Greater China region and has the most close communication with domestic universities, SCI standards are in a sense gradually influencing mainland universities through Hong Kong.
Later, when I went to the United States to do my postdoctoral work, professors at that time paid close attention to SCI and paid close attention to influencing factors.Later, as the communication deepened, I discovered that the famous professors actually put in so many magazines, even less, that they had a lot in mind about the level of magazines.At that time, the four famous geotechnical journals were told by Professor Daniel of the United States that they were all SCI members in terms of influence factors, in our field.When it comes to recognition within the circle, the first thing to say is that this academic circle is actually spread all over the world, and each academic circle is not very large.In particular, professors who have become famous have an evaluation of the level of professors in their circles.I don't think these bullies are just the number of SCIs, but the original contribution to research, something that is recognized worldwide.Interestingly speaking of Hong Kong, Daniel said that professors in Hong Kong have some very good friends with him. In other words, the work of professors in Hong Kong is still very good in his mind.I asked him, "I don't have an American degree. Is it difficult to get a full-time job in the United StatesWould you like a degree?Daniel said that the research and publications of university professors in Hong Kong are very good. In our field, Hong Kong universities should have about 50 students in the U.S. and it is not wise to study for a degree.In addition, he suggested that your own country, China, should be very optimistic about research funds and recent research results (SCI papers), and that I recently reviewed a lot of papers from China.I asked him what he thought of mainland China's research in our field. Daniel said he didn't really know much, but from the recent years, more and more high-level SCI papers published, this is a rapid progress.Daniel also seems to be very accomplished in philosophy.
After arriving in Australia, I found that Australia also attached great importance to SCI, the big boss has said that SCI paper is money. In Australia, in addition to the importance of SCI, and influencing factors, they have also developed a set of "SCI", which is actually divided these journals according to various indicators.In different fields, according to the international academic recognition of the editor-in-chief, the editorial committee's academic influence and other indicators, finally through a large number of sample survey feedback evaluation A*, A, B, C and so on.The advantage of this partition is that teachers in different fields can also have a horizontal comparison, because the impact factors in different fields are so different that there is no comparison at all.According to the Australian journal zoning method, I have studied periodicals in the geotechnical field seriously, can be said responsibly very reliable.A, Area A* basically covers all good journals recognized in the field.In fact, English journals run in China, such as the English version of Central South University and the English version of Zhejiang University, are doing well in China, but they may not have enough influence, so they have to complain in Area B.In addition, the Chinese Society of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (http://www.rockgeotech.org/en/dqml.asp ) has also done quite well. Although it has not been included in the SCI and has not even appeared in Australia, it is only a matter of time.