奇葩论文背后：要诚信，也要合理化晋升制度

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need to break the "paper-only" evaluation system in the medical field and establish a more reasonable promotion system that aligns with industry practices, ultimately improving healthcare service quality and restoring patient trust [1][4]. Group 1: Issues with Current Research Practices - A recent paper from two gynecologists at Fujian Provincial People's Hospital reported an implausible statistic of 64% male patients among 100 cases of endometriosis, leading to public outrage and a loss of trust in medical research [2]. - The prevalence of absurd research papers highlights the deep-rooted issue of formalism in academic evaluation and daily work, raising questions about the integrity of the peer review process [2][3]. - The article critiques the current standards of research paper review, suggesting that mere adherence to format and quantity of references has overshadowed the importance of logical data integrity [2][4]. Group 2: Motivations Behind Research Misconduct - The article discusses the underlying motivations for research misconduct, attributing it to unreasonable promotion mechanisms that prioritize publication over practical clinical experience [2][3]. - A gray market has emerged where medical professionals feel compelled to pay for publication in journals to advance their careers, indicating a systemic issue within the academic evaluation framework [2][4]. - The article argues that the promotion criteria for clinical staff, particularly nurses, should focus more on practical experience and ethical standards rather than academic publications [2][3]. Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - The National Health Commission proposed in 2020 to scientifically set evaluation standards that move away from a strict focus on papers, degrees, and language proficiency, encouraging healthcare workers to engage more in frontline patient care [3][4]. - The article suggests that if the current public discourse leads to a reformed evaluation system, the demand for nonsensical papers will diminish, thereby eliminating the gray market for academic publications [4].