Steering wheel
The sudden raging of coronary virus diseases in 2019 has not only become the most watched international journalist, but also the central hotspot in the field of scientific research.In this battle, countless scientific researchers at home and abroad have devoted a lot of effort and energy. Among them, the performance of Chinese scientific researchers is particularly prominent.
One month after the outbreak, Chinese researchers successfully extracted the whole gene sequence of the virus. Its speed and high efficiency were praised by the world.However, under the view of this epidemic, some problems in Chinese scientific research have also been exposed.
First of all, the phenomenon of scientific research is relatively prominent.After the outbreak of the epidemic, many Chinese science workers have obtained a lot of opportunities to publish papers in top international journals, reporting many virus -related epidemiology and biological information.
One of the controversial things is a paper published in New England Medicine, which proposes interpersonal communication among the close contact in December 2019.Among the authors of this paper, they are both leaders of Chinese disease prevention, some epidemiological experts of the China Disease Control and Control Center, and leaders of the first -line clinical clinical epidemic.
However, during the early investigation of the epidemic in Wuhan, the coronary virus had no obvious conversation with the coronary virus, misleading the public's awareness of the epidemic, and to a certain extent, it also became the basis for China's official guidance policy.
The author later explained that the reason why there is a contradiction in speech is because his papers are based on a retrospective research, and there is a certain lag.This may to a certain extent, which can temporarily alleviate the public's competence on researchers' remarks, but if the facts are really concerned about the public, he knows that there is an interpersonal spread in the early stage of the epidemic, but he has made speech that violates facts in public in public.It is obviously a problem with its attitude as a scientific worker.
Another thing is that the team of Professor Zhang Yongzhen from Fudan University analyzed the genetic data of the coronary virus as soon as possible.At the critical moment of fighting the disease, it takes a certain time if you choose to write a paper to share this data.The team of Professor Zhang Yongzhen chose to share the cracked virus gene information and share it on the National Biotechnology Information Center (NCBI) to save the time of the majority of scientific researchers.
However, the team of Professor Takayama University in Nankai University, without any communication with Professor Zhang Yongzhen, used its shared information to seize the paper in advance, which caused public opinion to discuss the ethics of scientific researchers.
Scientific researchers should adhere to the spirit of pursuing and defending the truth of the facts, respecting the intellectual achievements of others, sharing, and mutual benefit and win -win.Publishing papers is not the fundamental purpose of scientific research.
Secondly, the assessment system of the assessment and performance of the dissertation with the title and performance makes people have unfair concern.In 2003, the Shats epidemic provided a disaster to Chinese society, but also provided some scientific researchers with opportunities to save the country and the people.A considerable part of the researchers published many papers in this epidemic.In the future assessment, these will become the basis for their promotion evaluation.
China's scientific research evaluation system has obvious results orientation. The number of papers and the level of publishing publications is closely related to the results of the assessment.These drivers are also one of the reasons for the phenomenon of well -spraying the paper in this epidemic.
However, what makes people criticize is that medical workers who work in clinical first -line work are afraid that there is no such time writing a dissertation.Some people sarcastically, the soldiers desperately saved people at the front line. Some researchers desperately accepted data and write papers in the rear. According to the traditional assessment and evaluation system, when evaluating afterwardsI feel a little unfair.No wonder some people say that everyone can leave something to write back to the front line, don't let the people who really pay, bleed and sweat in vain.
The third is the dispute between Chinese papers and scientific quotes (SCI) papers.For a long time, the transaction of the database has become one of the criteria for evaluating journals and dissertations.Impact factor is the core of evaluating papers.Under the assessment of the English papers and SCI papers, the Chinese papers have been reduced to the disadvantaged side.Objectively speaking, a considerable part of the Chinese journal has the phenomenon of inadequate reviews, uneven levels, and low returns in terms of assessment.
Therefore, the papers with higher academic value generally tend to publish in English magazines.After the outbreak, this phenomenon was even more prominent.A large number of high -quality papers are published in the SCI publications, and rarely appear in domestic publications.But at the same time, a considerable number of scientific workers in China do not have the ability to read English papers quickly.
Published the research results in foreign journals, and some people believe that it will affect academic research in China.Relevant Chinese departments have also noticed this phenomenon. In recent years, it has also tried to encourage papers to publish in domestic publications.However, the reasons for these phenomena are not solved, and researchers will still vote with their feet.
Recently, the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology has also realized these issues, and continuously posted documents to try to break the bad orientation of only the dissertations in the scientific and technological evaluation, and require the number of papers in the number of publications. The number of domestic journals in China is not less than one -third.However, how to establish a more fair and reasonable scientific research evaluation mechanism seems to have no conclusion, and this is the crux of the problem.
The author is a doctor of medicine
Master of Law
Oxford University Visestyle Researcher
