Conservative publishing industry: stifle innovation
There is a widely circulated proverb in western academic circles, that is, "If you don't publish it, you will die." Any academic achievement must be published if it is to be known and circulated. If you don't publish it, even if you have the theory of relativity in your mind, it will be digested by yourself and turned into garbage, just like the food in your stomach. Therefore, scholars in western countries attach great importance to publishing their own research results. Some scholars will throw their own opinions for everyone to comment and criticize even if their research is immature. For example, Stephen Hawking, a famous physicist, put forward the famous black hole theory more than 30 years ago, but now he himself denies it. When Einstein's general theory of relativity was first published, its mathematical inference was completely wrong. Western academic journals are more open and avant-garde and dare to publish anything. For example, "dinosaurs died of farting" and "thunder and lightning are related to testicles" all appear in publications. Therefore, in some western academic journals, many papers are worthless or even completely wrong research, even famous journals like American Physical Review are no exception. It is this publishing concept of westerners that leads to their innovative achievements emerging one after another.
Scientific research is always a process of trial and error, and academic journals are a faithful record of this process. If publications are not allowed to make mistakes, there can be no innovation. Because:
(1) Any major scientific innovation does not appear in a perfect system at first. At first, she had some shortcomings, even half right and half wrong. If the editor is critical of the paper, then many major innovative studies will never come out.
(2) Many studies with major breakthroughs have one or several "hurdles" or jumps that ordinary people can't understand, which can't be explained by general thinking and logic, and even have serious contradictions with existing theories. For example, the quantum concept in photoelectric effect and the assumption that the speed of light is constant in special relativity are inconsistent with people's usual thinking, and there is no direct evidence. Such innovative research is difficult for most people, including editors, to understand at once. It is said that when the theory of relativity came out, only seven people in the world understood it. If the editors shoot all the papers they don't understand, the theory of relativity will never come to light.
In western countries, there is an environment that "it is better to send a thousand papers by mistake than to stifle an innovative research", while in China, on the contrary, editors "would rather send a thousand papers by mistake than stifle an innovative achievement". Not only that, but our publication also shows full domineering:
-financial fans: to publish, take money; To publish, buy a book number.
-only state officials are allowed to set fires, and people are not allowed to light lamps: if the author submits more than one draft, he will be criticized and banned; However, many publications never say hello to the author and reprint the author's articles privately.
-Overbearing: Many publications require authors not to contribute to other publications for one month, three months or even six months after submitting their articles to their publications, and during this period, the publications do not give the authors any news, which often delays the time for the authors to contribute again.
In China, the publishing industry is a special industry and a monopoly industry. Personal publishing is very difficult and costly. For example, to publish a book with 200,000 words, the mainland needs 20,000-30,000 yuan, while Hong Kong only needs several thousand yuan. Therefore, in most cases, researchers have to rely on publications and publishing houses to publish their results. Conservative, domineering and low-level publishing circles simply don't realize their responsibilities. They would rather not make achievements than make mistakes. Many of our innovative seeds and achievements were thrown into the wastebasket by irresponsible editors and were strangled before they were born. Therefore, China lacks original achievements, and the biggest culprit is the publishing industry.
Bad talent system: making innovation difficult to sprout
Talent is the key to innovation. In academic research, an innovative person is better than a university or a research institution. A Bohr was born in Denmark, and the Institute of Theoretical Physics of Copenhagen University was established, which became the research center of atomic physics in the world at that time, and a Copenhagen school was born. However, people have their own advantages and disadvantages. In short, I mean that my major is wrong, my interest is not here, and I am not qualified for this job. If a person uses his shortcomings and avoids his advantages, it is impossible to achieve anything.
Under normal circumstances, when college students or graduate students look for jobs after graduation, their understanding of the employer is only indirect and superficial, and most people are not very clear about the research direction and academic environment of the employer. When I reported to the employer, submitted files or work to the employer for a period of time, I found that the employer was not suitable for me to change jobs, but I couldn't jump out, which was more difficult than carp jumping the dragon gate. Some units are holding files, and some units have to pay a sum of money to leave. As a result, many people have to make do and work in the unit they don't want to stay for a lifetime.
At the same time, people who want to enter some research units can't get in, and superiors or leaders who don't want to enter simply "plant" in the unit. This is our current system of "employing people regardless of people, managing people without people".
Because of the poor flow of talents, those who study agriculture go to history, and those who study politics are assigned to physical research institutions ... a large number of talents are wasted. Letting a doctor of biology who has no interest in astronomy study stellar physics is tantamount to letting an illiterate be a secretary.
In absolute terms, there are many college students, master students, doctoral students, researchers and professors, which can compete with any country in the world. However, few of our talents can really engage in what they are interested in, and many people just muddle along. They can't produce results or innovate. In some western countries, due to the smooth and frequent flow of talents, most people can finally find jobs or suitable positions that they are interested in. Therefore, from the perspective of giving full play to its role, China's talents are extremely limited, which may not be as good as that of France with a population of only tens of millions.
So it can be said that many of our talents have been murdered by our talent system, and they are living dead.
Naive academic criticism: destroying the social environment of innovation
China people have always been very modest. It doesn't matter whether they scold themselves or beat themselves, but many people just don't like others to make irresponsible remarks and criticize themselves. This is the weakness of our character. However, our academic criticism has just found the weakness of Chinese people. When criticizing others, we are always merciless, even looking far and wide, which deviates from the theme of academic criticism. Mainly as follows:
1. Criticize people and seldom criticize academic opinions or theories. First of all, from the social background of the critics, it has always been superficial. If this person has no diploma, or has shortcomings in life, or has never published a decent paper before, then it can be asserted that his views or theories are incorrect;
2. Look at foreigners' faces. If foreigners are not interested in the research or theory of the criticized person, or there is no similar research abroad at all, then this research or theory is definitely problematic or has no future;
3. find fault. If one sentence in the criticized article is wrong, or some viewpoints are quoted at the wrong time, then this paper must be worthless;
4. Always hit a stick. If there are mistakes in the article of the criticized person, then he must be engaged in pseudoscience, have ulterior secrets, and want to cheat honor, etc.
5. Mobilize society to stifle critics academically. If the criticized article is really wrong, or most people don't agree with its research, then someone asks, "How can such an article come out?" Even editors or publications (publishing houses) should be held accountable, which makes everyone panic.
Academic criticism is also a part of academic research, which plays a very important role in promoting academic development and prosperity. Through healthy and positive academic criticism, the wrong academic viewpoint or theory will fully expose its mistakes, and the correct academic viewpoint or theory will spark in the criticism, reveal its true colors and be accepted by the public.
Innovation is a difficult process, and it is impossible to succeed at once. Therefore, academic criticism should proceed from goodwill and maintain a certain tolerance. In addition to exposing mistakes, academic criticism should also protect the initiative of innovators and provide guidance and suggestions for the author's further research. However, at present, our academic criticism is either kind and stagnant, or like a street bitch, we will never give up. Therefore, China lacks scientific innovation, and academic criticism is also to blame. Because it is the interference of critics that destroys the appropriate environment for innovation.
Organized scientific research: rejecting theoretical innovation
The key to scientific innovation is that researchers can carry out academic research with their own interests without any constraints. However, almost all the research in China is organized. First of all, researchers should apply for scientific research projects listed by higher authorities and put them in cages, otherwise they will not get scientific research funds. Secondly, after the scientific research funds are used up, it is necessary to pay the accounts to the superiors, and what achievements have been made, such as what products have been developed, what patents have been applied for, and how many papers have been published. As for whether these products are wanted, whether the patents are bought or not, and whether the papers are valuable, no one will ask. In this way, the researcher's thinking and activities are firmly trapped by the prescribed projects and the pursuit of immediate results.
An American biologist wrote a best-selling book called The Secret of Nature. In the book, he wrote: "Only organized technology, not organized science." Looking at the achievements made by China since liberation, they are all technical achievements. From the "two bombs and one satellite" we talked about to the recent manned space flight, they are all scientific and technological achievements. The "artificial synthesis of bovine insulin", which almost won the Nobel Prize for our scientists, is actually a technological breakthrough, not an important theoretical discovery (because the structure and chemical composition of bovine insulin are already very clear).
Because of the organization of the research, even the purely theoretical things have become technical problems, and the most typical one is the study of the straton model theory. During the Cultural Revolution, our hierarchical research was highly valued by leaders, and a large number of talented physicists and even college students were organized to participate. Under the guidance of the idea that matter is infinitely divisible, everyone is looking for a technological breakthrough, but there is no breakthrough, and others' "quarks" take the lead.
It is ok to do some research that follows the international frontier like the "863 Project", but if all the research needs planning, it is tantamount to binding hands and feet. Because when making a project plan, you must first have a look, that is to say, someone is doing that research, and things without shadows cannot be listed. Most of the projects listed in this way are technical research, and even if a breakthrough can be made, it may be to marry someone else. This was the case with superconducting research in the late 1980s. Our scientists took the lead in greatly raising the temperature of ceramic superconductivity in the world, but the person who first discovered ceramic superconductivity finally won the Nobel Prize.
So far, no one in Chinese mainland has won the Nobel Prize. A very important reason is that many of our major breakthroughs are technological breakthroughs, and any technological breakthrough is only a flash in the pan and will eventually be replaced by more advanced technologies. However, the breakthrough of pure theory is not the case. Everything in theory has a rising stage that is gradually proved and accepted, and its life cycle is much longer than that of technological invention.
Before liberation, our scientists were able to make important scientific discoveries under very difficult conditions. For example, in the 1940s, Wang proposed an experimental scheme of K capture to test the hypothesis of neutrinos. According to this scheme, American physicist Allen first proved the existence of neutrinos. The reason is that they have a free research environment.
Therefore, at present, our lack of scientific innovation is directly related to the organization of scientific research.
False academic authority: suppressing innovation
A country, a region, a professional academic talent, academic level and academic environment constitute its academic ecosystem. In this ecosystem, academic authority plays a decisive role.
First of all, the achievements of academic authority represent the academic level of a region, a country or a major, and are the business cards of a region, a country or a major. People's views on academic authority greatly affect their views on a certain profession or country. When it comes to German philosophy, we think of Hegel. When it comes to Japanese physics, we think of Hideki Yukawa. When it comes to science in Taiwan Province Province, I think of Li Yuanzhe. ...
Secondly, the thoughts, research methods and innovative spirit of academic authority will affect scholars in this country, region or specialty. If academic authority is rigid and conservative, then countries, regions or professions will generally be rigid and conservative.
Third, academic authority plays an important role in cultivating and discovering talents or scientific achievements. Any innovative talent needs the support of authority, and any important discovery must be recognized and recommended by authority in order to be accepted by everyone more quickly. Einstein was a genius. If he hadn't been recommended and supported by Planck, Eddington and other scientists, he would have died like Wei Gena. Without Hua's discovery and support, Chen Jingrun could not have pushed the proof of Goldbach's conjecture to a new level.
Nowadays, some so-called academic authorities have few real talents, like to occupy the Shantoula faction (this faction is not an academic faction, but a political and patriarchal faction), support their disciples and partners almost unprincipled in research and evaluation, and suppress others, especially those with different academic views. As a result, everyone went his own way, academic views could not be exchanged, and swift horses in scientific research could not be discovered.
A philosopher once said: if a rabbit leads a group of lions, all lions will become rabbits; If a lion takes away a group of rabbits, the rabbits will also become lions. Most of our academic authorities are rabbits, so the scientific research team is full of rabbits.
If one of our majors or disciplines has no position in the world and is at the third-and fourth-rate level, then the authority or leader of this discipline is incompetent. If he is incompetent and self-righteous, directing our research and making irresponsible remarks about other people's research, then he is an out-and-out sinner who hinders national innovation.
Absence of the rich: lack of folk science innovation fund
One of the important reasons why researchers in western developed countries can conduct free research is that they can easily get some funds, and many of them are established by the people. For example, in the United States, there are almost all kinds of research funds, such as animal language research funds, gay research funds and so on. These funds are all established by wealthy private individuals. What's more, many enterprises set up research institutes to provide favorable conditions for scientists to engage in various kinds of research freely.
In China, apart from the national team-state-funded universities and large-scale research institutions, there are few research institutions established by enterprises, and even less research funded by the people. One year, an international laser academic research conference was held in a university in Wuhan. Almost all domestic scholars come from universities and scientific research institutions, while 90% of foreign participants come from major companies. Some foreign scholars attended the meeting on behalf of enterprises, although they taught in universities.
China people are rich now. They spend a lot of money playing football, inviting international and domestic stars to improve their status, and so on. Even in the world's expensive cultural relics auction, it is not difficult to see China people. These rich people really make us proud. However, people who get rich first rarely invest money in scientific research, especially pure academic research that has no economic benefits for the time being.
Therefore, China's lack of scientific innovation is also related to the fact that the people who got rich first failed to fulfill their due obligations.
Popular academic journals: hindering innovation
It is essential to engage in academic research and consult all kinds of materials, especially to know and master the similar research of peers or others in time. For example, you put forward a new idea that can explain the formation of the earth's magnetic field. If you want to further prove your point of view, you should first consult the information to see if others have similar research. To understand the study of the earth's magnetic field, it is best to find a publication on the study of the earth's magnetic field. However, in China, there are no publications devoted to the study of the earth's magnetic field, and papers on the study of the earth's magnetic field are widely published in Geophysics, Geology and various comprehensive publications. It takes a lot of time, and sometimes you can't even understand everyone's research on the earth's magnetic field. If you don't understand other people's research and start your own research rashly, you will inevitably take a detour; Sometimes I even managed to solve a problem that I have been trying to solve for years. I wanted to publish my results, but I was told that others had solved the problem.
In western countries, academic journals have a clear division of labor and strong professionalism. For example, in astronomy, there are magazines that study planets, stars and the moon and magazines that specialize in radio. In economics, there are journals that study economic evolution, journals that study bio-economy and journals that study classical economics. In China, an "astronomical magazine" covers everything in the sky. "Economic research" includes all-encompassing economic phenomena.
However, Journal of Astronomy and Economic Research are both popular magazines, not comprehensive ones. If you write a research article on "economic phenomena in nature" or an article on "astronomical factors of social movements", these popular magazines will never be published, because the editors employed by China journals are knowledgeable editors, and there will never be experts who understand physics or biology in the economics editorial department, and there will never be social experts in the astronomy editorial department. Therefore, it is difficult for our country to publish real cross-papers. But many major innovations are the integration of disciplines and the integration and collision of knowledge. Therefore, China's academic journals are not professional and comprehensive enough, which is also an important factor restricting academic innovation.
It doesn't seem right.
Baidu Innovation Bar also has some information on this.
For more innovative information, please visit the Confucian Business Innovation Forum/index.asp.