"There are some bad trends in research in China," said Yann LeCun, a Turing-winning short video titled "There is a problem with the incentives for Chinese research."China has a lot of very smart people, a lot of very good researchers, a lot of excellent research achievements, especially in artificial intelligence and computer vision.But a number of bad papers were withdrawn months after they were published.Part of the reason is that there is a problem with the incentive mechanism in China's academic system."What he said was truthful and to the point.
As we all know, scientific research achievements are objective elements in evaluating the hard strength of scientific and technological personnel, and are a sign of their influence in the peer.Regulating income distribution through differences in scientific research achievements, allowing hard-working and outstanding achievements to obtain legitimate and decent income, this kind of "scientific research incentive" mechanism, since ancient times.Scientific and reasonable incentives for scientific research should promote scientific and technological progress and help create a positive academic atmosphere in institutions.Senior teachers told me that the promotion mechanism of professional titles in the 1950s and 1960s was more scientific and reasonable. Teachers paid attention to both scientific research achievements and undergraduate teaching.Our Geophysical Exploration Department, Mr. Cai Berlin, was promoted to lecturer because of his excellent teaching in the whole school.If Peng Zhizhong was promoted to associate professor (and elected to the 3rd National People's Congress) in the 1950s, he would probably be promoted to professor and put on those academic "hats" with Chinese characteristics.It can be seen that at that time, although there were no explicit incentives for scientific research, the promotion of titles was fair and equitable, and the public accepted it.
I have had the honor to experience the evolution of the school research incentive policy since the reform and opening-up of the country.In a sense, some of our university teachers who insist on scientific research are the beneficiaries of scientific research incentive policy since reform and opening up.I have also been paying attention to the output of science and technology incentives of relevant academic institutions in China, and also taking advantage of various opportunities to learn about the "incentive" mechanisms of international academic institutions.China's scientific research incentive mechanism and policy since the reform and opening up can be roughly divided into three stages (for personal understanding only):
Stage 1: Mainly to break the decades-old rice distribution mechanism.In the 1978-1980s, we had to solve some problems left over by the "senior citizens' titles". The promotion of the title of senior citizens in the Cultural Revolution University had been suspended for more than 10 years.In addition, this phase could lead to some bizarre distribution initiatives when salary promotion indicators are limited.For example, in the 1969 and 1970s, when we stayed in the school, both couples adopted a "two-tint-one" system in the same unit of the school, whereby only one spouse was paid a promotion to the first level.There is no obvious "scientific research incentive" measure at this stage, because everyone is in the stage of scientific research starting or recovering, and there is no obvious difference in scientific and technological achievements.
The second stage: I suspect that Nanjing University attaches importance to SCI papers in the mid-1980s, which belongs to the stage of scientific research incentive mechanism.This is when I began to focus on the SCI (Science City Index) document database created by Eugene Garfield of the American Institute of Scientific Information.This stage is reasonable and fair relative to the first stage.The main feature of the appropriate quantification mechanism is that we can provide visible and objective scientific and technological achievements to participate in the relevant evaluation.As an established key university, the promotion of teachers in 1995 put forward specific quantitative requirements for scientific research achievements for the first time, such as four specific requirements for professors to be promoted to associate professor.The main beneficiaries of this phase are the teachers who have long been devoted to learning and productive.As this phase of "moderately quantified incentives for technological achievements" has widened the gap between teachers' titles and incomes, there seems to be little to say, though some people think that incentives are too sudden.
The third stage: This stage I call "high quantitative research incentive policy" stage.Obviously, this stage of the science and technology incentive policy has an epochal background.In order to close the gap between science and technology education and developed countries, policymakers in our country try to catch up with and overtake advanced countries in a relatively short time.At present, highly quantitative scientific measurement and evaluation measures, commonly known as numerical evaluation, are the products of this era background.Some of these technological incentives seem paradoxical, emphasizing quality rather than quantity.For example, it is to divide academic journals into "369" and publish papers in natural index journals, thus making some scholars "one paper to win the world".To be sure, if a scientific achievement of a world-shaking nuclear custom is "recognized" by an international peer, such as Professor Peng Zhizhong's achievement of the world's "crystal structure of grape stone" deserves much praise and praise.In fact, publication is only the first step in any basic scientific achievement that requires peer recognition and sometimes time-tested.Even top-page papers are published only after a few (usually no more than five) experts have reviewed them.It turns out that some of the results published in the top issues were later unknown and did not lead to a "scientific revolution" in the field, and some "top issues" were even withdrawn due to errors or other reasons.It is also the main characteristic of this stage to attach importance to the citation of the thesis and promote the phenomenon of high citation.Industry peers know that citation depends on a number of factors, such as popular areas, the size of the authors, and so on.Highlighting "high-cited papers" has led to some bad citations, such as abnormal self-citation.For this reason, the relevant management service departments of the state issued a "break five only" cry, but the long-term formation of impetuous utilitarian research incentive policy negative effects need time to correct.
Practice is a sign to test whether any "incentive policy" is scientific and reasonable.In recent years, we have published academic theories and even "high-cited papers" and "high-cited authors" are rapidly approaching or even surpassing some developed countries in Europe and the United States.However, we rarely see Chinese scientists who can make outstanding contributions to the world's scientific development.As far as I know, European and American universities also have different types of incentives, such as outstanding professors and named professors, which are the products of scientific incentives.But their "scientific incentives" mechanisms are "silent rather than sound".This kind of scientific research incentive mechanism, which follows the law of scientific development and talent growth, has achieved brilliant achievements in education and scientific development in Europe and America.
It is difficult to answer Qian Xuesen's question that bad incentive mechanism violates the law of scientific development and talent growth, undermines fairness and justice, aggravates the frivolity and utility of scientific research.Some of us in society claim that undergraduate students from some famous universities in our country contribute to the West after graduation.As a matter of fact, if you study carefully, it is almost impossible for us to find a job in an academic institution (including an enterprise) in Europe and the U.S. to contribute to these countries.Most of them have completed postgraduate studies at European and American universities, and some have postdoctoral studies, which have laid a solid foundation for their scientific thinking and ability.Many of our older generation of distinguished scientists have received systematic scientific training in Europe and the United States, such as the "two-star meritorious" scientists.Many of the scholars who are active in domestic universities have completed graduate education in Europe and the United States, and some have returned home after many years of work.Therefore, we should support the students of these prestigious universities to receive advanced scientific research education in Europe and the United States.
We should gradually improve the scientific and reasonable policy of encouraging science and technology, so that our academic institutions can train high-level scientific and technological personnel.I believe that as long as we stick to it for a long time, we may one day attract many students from Europe and the United States to receive our education, so that we can contribute to the world's higher education and scientific development.This is the "science without borders, scientists have the motherland" sentiment and realm.