CHINESE JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL CHEMISTRY

Firstly, intellectuals should have the demeanor and vision of cultured individuals. It seems contradictory to attack others personally right from the beginning, which goes against the original intention of reading. Should I just ignore it because I made a cheap purchase? What kind of mentality is this? Must I praise the article every day because I bought it? The reason for posting an article is to gain recognition in my field of work, what does this have to do with being a good person? Are you also deceiving readers and having issues with your character?

Secondly, researchers should pursue truth and have a clear understanding of their own field or industry. I have already acknowledged the progress made after the revision, but there is still a long way to go to reach the standards of top-tier journals mentioned by the person above. This is a fact. Moreover, this has nothing to do with the confidence of a technologically strong nation. Being a technologically strong nation does not mean being a strong journal country, and increasing the influence of domestic foreign-language journals does not equate to cultural confidence. Don't label things so broadly. You can't handle it.

Thirdly, those who have completed graduate studies should at least understand how to speak with data. The 32% self-citation rate is mentioned above, and anyone familiar with SCI knows that this is extremely alarming in this field. Are you referring to this journal with a 30+% self-citation rate as a representation of being a technologically strong nation?

Lastly, domestic journals need support and attention, but they do not need blind followers.

@cc-thri replied: I didn't ask you to praise, nor did I ask you to belittle. How and when did they deceive readers?

Reply: Your opinion itself lacks factual accuracy. You mentioned self-citation at 30%, but without investigation, you have no right to speak. Go to Web of Science and find out for yourself. Don't casually quote baseless statements to draw your own conclusions.

Reply: Which field? What is so outrageous? Are you referring to citations? Are your data accurate? How did you obtain the data? Don't foreign journals like JACS cite their own articles? What citations are considered legitimate and what are considered improper? You must have some basis to make certain conclusions.

Reply: No investigation, no right to speak? You said yourself that we should seek factual accuracy, but then you reply with "shuijun" (meaning "who cares").