Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes that the value of scientific research should be measured by academic contributions rather than the prestige of publication platforms, challenging the prevailing "top journal worship" mentality in the academic community [5][6][7]. Group 1: Nobel Prize and Research Value - Nobel Prize winners often face skepticism, yet their groundbreaking work can be recognized regardless of publication venue [3][6]. - The historical context shows that many Nobel-winning research papers were not published in top-tier journals, highlighting the importance of the research's impact over its publication platform [6][7]. - Experts advocate for a reform in academic evaluation systems to focus on originality and methodological breakthroughs rather than solely on publication metrics [7][8]. Group 2: Academic Journal Landscape in China - China's academic journals have proliferated, yet the capacity to publish high-quality international research remains insufficient compared to the demand [9][10]. - Data indicates that in 2023, Chinese authors published 728,700 papers in SCI journals, accounting for about one-third of global output, but only 33,400 were published in Chinese SCI journals [9][10]. - The need for a national-level publishing platform is emphasized to enhance the competitiveness of Chinese academic journals against major international publishers [10][11]. Group 3: Future Directions for Chinese Academic Journals - The National Natural Science Foundation of China mandates that at least 20% of papers from approved projects should be published in domestic journals [11]. - Developing domestic academic journals is seen as crucial for establishing the authority in defining and evaluating research value [11][12]. - There is a call for Chinese journals to focus on unique scientific issues relevant to China, promoting innovative and non-consensus research [12].

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].