诺奖评委称“顶刊”不是评奖标准！国内科学家呼吁破除“顶刊崇拜”

Core Viewpoint - The value of scientific research should be assessed based on academic contributions rather than the publication platform, as emphasized by various experts in the field [3][4][5]. Group 1: Scientific Research Evaluation - Nobel Prize winners often have their significant work published in less prestigious journals, highlighting that groundbreaking research does not always appear in top-tier publications [3][4]. - The prevailing "top journal worship" is rooted in the evaluation system, where titles and awards are primarily based on publication in high-impact journals [4]. - Experts are calling for a reform in academic evaluation to focus on originality, methodological breakthroughs, and strategic relevance, moving away from the "impact factor trap" [4][5]. Group 2: Development of Academic Journals - China's academic journals should evolve from being mere "paper containers" to sources of knowledge innovation, as the current capacity of high-level international journals does not meet the demand for Chinese authors [5][6]. - The fragmented publishing model in China makes it difficult to compete with major international publishers, necessitating the creation of a national-level publishing platform [6]. - The National Natural Science Foundation of China has mandated that at least 20% of papers resulting from funded projects should be published in domestic scientific journals by 2025 [7]. Group 3: Unique Contributions and Challenges - Domestic academic journals are encouraged to focus on unique Chinese scientific issues, such as specific disease spectrums and complex geological structures, to enhance their impact [8]. - There is a need to support "non-consensus innovations" that may initially seem unconventional but are logically sound and imaginative, requiring strong editorial judgment [8].