IEEE Access

In addition, the central policy has always emphasized evaluating academic achievements based on publications. However, there are still many debates among teachers regarding whether it is feasible to evaluate academic achievements based on publications in graduation, fund application, and promotion evaluations. It is possible to evaluate academic achievements based on publications in terms of student graduation. In fact, it has always been done this way because teachers can assess the quality of your entire academic career based on your thesis. Therefore, it is important for every student to write their thesis seriously and responsibly, regardless of the quantity of their other papers, as their thesis largely determines whether they can graduate. However, it is difficult to evaluate academic achievements based on publications in fund applications and promotions. Students who have participated in writing funding proposals should understand that these proposals generally do not involve detailed technical aspects. Instead, they are evaluated based on the project's importance to national strategy, innovation, and the solid foundation of the team. If the project is considered important to national strategy, the number of papers becomes secondary. However, for more mainstream directions, the evaluation can only be based on the quantity of papers and the foundation of the team. This is currently a dilemma. Similarly, in the promotion process, it is not possible for all teachers applying for promotion to submit a material as extensive as a graduation thesis to demonstrate their recent work. Neither the teachers nor the expert reviewers have the time and energy for this. Moreover, considering the current policy direction of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, evaluating academic achievements based on publications is a demanding and long-term task.

Anyway, it's just a type of academic pick-up artist, and the requirement for SCI is also led by a certain institution. After dividing into different levels, they further compare and rank individuals. Finally, they pit the masses against each other. Please, isn't the reason why Chinese researchers need SCI because of this damn requirement for SCI? If the evaluation system has problems, shouldn't we modify the system? Why are some people targeting it like this? It seems like it's implying that Chinese researchers are worthless just because they have a high percentage. What about the confidence we talked about? There are also many non-open access journals and conferences that charge high publication fees. No one says that access is better than traditional transactions, right? Everyone works hard to conduct experiments and write papers, normal submission, normal revisions, and normal acceptance. We don't steal or rob, and all the results are achieved through hard work. We just want to earn a living after graduation. Why does it feel like making a mistake or being disgusted by some people just because of publishing in access? This is at least close to a 4-point impact factor, isn't it? Isn't this fake? The real-time impact factor in 2020 is 4.637, isn't that fake? Access has higher quality than many ordinary SCI journals in the third and fourth quartiles, isn't that fake? Access has not been involved in any academic misconduct or retraction news, right? JCR hasn't issued any warnings, right? If anyone truly discovers academic misconduct or papers that don't meet the level of SCI, please provide the links. Access is open source, and everyone can see the links. Post them, and I will be the first to write a report to purify the academic environment, okay?