46 BEIJING REVIEW MARCH 12, 2020 http://www.bjreview.com
FORUM
Should SCI Theses
Criterion Be Revoked?
R
ecently, a notice released on the web-
site 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 profes-
sional evaluation or recruitment of teaching
staff; universities should refrain from using
SCI theses and relevant impact factors as a
restrictive condition for students’ gradua-
tion and academic degrees; and SCI theses
should not be referenced while giving re-
wards or prizes to individuals or departments.
SCI is a list of scientific texts from
around the world, created by the Institute
IRU6FLHQWLĶF,QIRUPDWLRQLQWKH86LQWKH
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 connec-
tions. 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 ex-
cellent evaluation system that keeps China
RQSDUZLWKLQWHUQDWLRQDOVFLHQWLĶFUHVHDUFK
levels. However, others believe that the over-
emphasis on this system seems to do more
harm than good.
Every year, China produces a huge num-
ber 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 the-
ses 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 scrap-
ping 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 ad-
opted 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?
0RVWVFKRODUVODFNFRQĶGHQFHLQ&KLQDoV
imperfect peer evaluation system. If SCI
criterion gives way to peer review, we are
almost certain to see many individuals seek-
ing favor from peers through various means,
including bribery. This is the major reason
for concern among many scholars. SCI wor-
shipping 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 in-
dexes, but not to cancel the SCI criterion
altogether.
Relaxing control over academic evalua-
tion 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 experimentalscience, 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,
VFKRODUVDUHQRWHQJDJHGLQVFLHQWLĶFH[SHUL
ments, 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 pub-
lished SCI theses.
Zhao Enuo (People’s Daily): The
dominant position of SCI has long been con-
GHPQHGE\WKH&KLQHVHVFLHQWLĶFDFDGHPLF
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
UDQNLQJVVRPHVFLHQWLĶFUHVHDUFKLQVWLWXWHV
and universities spend too much time and
energy on cranking out these papers, ne-
glecting what they are really supposed to be
doing.
To strengthen China’s education and
advance its science and technology devel-
opment, 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
WRLPSURYH&KLQDoVRYHUDOOVFLHQWLĶFUHVHDUFK
and academic system.
To correct current worshipping of the
SCI standard, the MOE document stressed
that it’s important to have an accurate un-
derstanding of the importance of SCI theses
and other similar indexes as well as a pro-
found 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 pub-
lication of any SCI theses and impact factors