(LI SHIGONG)

Recently, a notice released on the website of China's Ministry of Education (MOE) stirred a controversy in the country's universities. The notice listed 10 suggestions targeting Science Citation Index (SCI) academic papers. It stated that the publication of theses in SCI journals should not be directly linked to the professional evaluation or recruitment of teaching staff; universities should refrain from using SCI theses and relevant impact factors as a restrictive condition for students' graduation and academic degrees; and SCI theses should not be referenced while giving rewards or prizes to individuals or departments.

SCI is a list of scientific texts from around the world, created by the Institute for Scientific Information in the U.S. in the early 1960s. It covers life science, physics, chemistry, medical science and others, and is used to evaluate the academic level of the science world. SCI is globally recognized as an authoritative academic evaluation system and SCI theses refer to papers that are published in journals cited by SCI.

In the late 1980s, Nanjing University introduced SCI in China, and it was picked up by many Chinese universities as it was seen as an objective criterion for scientific research performance evaluation. Initially, the SCI evaluation system was adopted to avoid interference in academic evaluation by means of guanxi, or personal social connections. However, as SCI was increasingly seen as the only evaluation criterion and the SCI-centered evaluation system swept across the academic community, some negative impacts emerged.

Some people believe that SCI is an excellent evaluation system that keeps China on par with international scientific research levels. However, others believe that the overemphasis on this system seems to do more harm than good.

Every year, China produces a huge number of SCI theses, but the quality of some papers is questionable. Compared to the developed world, China still lags behind in terms of citations and many Chinese SCI theses are retracted every year. Thus, Chinese scholars are wasting a lot of time and energy on unnecessary work while curbing their creativity. While some people read MOE's suggestions as a prelude for the removal of the SCI thesis evaluation system altogether, others believe that it points to doing away with the worshipping of SCI, instead of scrapping it altogether.

A balancing act

Zhang Duanhong (The Beijing News): To some extent, SCI worshipping is damaging the fundamentals of academic research and stunting academic innovation. Still a great number of scholars align themselves with SCI standards and don't want to see it uprooted.

When publication in SCI journals is adopted as a criterion for academic evaluation, individuals at least have a channel to reach their goals, so if this is removed, what will replace it?

Most scholars lack confidence in China's imperfect peer evaluation system. If SCI criterion gives way to peer review, we are almost certain to see many individuals seeking favor from peers through various means, including bribery. This is the major reason for concern among many scholars. SCI worshipping is unacceptable, but there must be a criterion. If there is a new one, it must be a strict yardstick and not department votes from a university or a science institute or evaluation by peer experts from other provinces. We can expect unfairness in this system even before it's put into use.

The MOE's document aims to curb the worshipping of SCI and correct abused indexes, but not to cancel the SCI criterion altogether.

Relaxing control over academic evaluation will help to diversify scholars' academic activities and in such a free environment, their creativity can be brought out more.

If a scholar is interested in experimental science, it's possible for him or her to publish many papers in SCI journals. In this case, SCI is generally a good criterion for academic evaluation. However, in some other cases, scholars are not engaged in scientific experiments, but are good at writing books, thus the publication of books should also be used as a criterion. Similarly, some scholars can provide excellent suggestions based on their research, which in turn translate into helpful government policies. Their work should also be recognized even if they have no published SCI theses.

Zhao Enuo (People's Daily): The dominant position of SCI has long been condemned by the Chinese scientific academic community. Since SCI theses are used as a disproportionately major index to evaluate individuals' academic performance, which in turn decides professional titles, promotions, relevant resource distribution and university rankings, some scientific research institutes and universities spend too much time and energy on cranking out these papers, neglecting what they are really supposed to be doing.

To strengthen China's education and advance its science and technology development, we need to create an academic environment that is friendly to science and education staff who are really good at what they do and encourage them to make more contributions in their respective areas so as to improve China's overall scientific research and academic system.

To correct current worshipping of the SCI standard, the MOE document stressed that it's important to have an accurate understanding of the importance of SCI theses and other similar indexes as well as a profound understanding of the impact of the dominant status of SCI theses. It demanded that SCI theses not be directly connected to promotions or recruitment of professors by universities. In addition, universities should refrain from imposing any SCI thesis quota on departments or individuals and the publication of any SCI theses and impact factors on graduates as a precondition for graduation and degree awarding.

These are all efforts to curb the dominance of SCI, but not to totally deny it. University professors should be allowed to concentrate on their research and teaching in a pure and efficient academic environment. Thus a proper guiding principle is crucial. On the one hand, science researchers should be encouraged to publish high-quality and inspiring theses in SCI journals in order to boost China's academic prominence in the international academic world. On the other hand, the academic evaluation system should stop overemphasizing SCI theses and pay more attention to researchers' performance in their daily work. Meanwhile, exploring a better evaluation system should never stop.

Only by pursuing a rational academic evaluation system can we expect science staff and universities to fully tap into their potential to propel the country's overall science and university teaching forward.

More open system needed

Bao Nan (Beijing Daily): For many years, the Chinese academic community has used SCI as the only evaluation yardstick, creating an increasing problem. SCI is an authoritative evaluation index, but it's not the only barometer and should not be used as the only reference. It's ludicrous to focus on the number of theses, citations and impact factors, then turn a blind eye to individuals' actual performance in their respective fields.

With SCI elevated to a dominant status, it's possible for some people to act unscrupulously to have their papers published, even bringing about an underground industrial chain. In this vicious cycle, those who are devoted to scientific research and teaching without too much time to write papers are marginalized, while opportunists get fame and promotions. This will inevitably dent the fairness of academic evaluation and the vitality and overall academic atmosphere in China. In this sense, it's high time to strip SCI of its holy status in the scientific and academic world.

It is important to set up a more rational academic evaluation system which will help to discover more talent and provide a boon to the country.

Copyedited by Rebeca Toledo

Comments to dingying@bjreview.com