"普刊基本都能发""国庆活动北大核心期刊1.4万元，即可赠送知网普刊一篇""不见刊全额退款"…… 近日，一些读者来信反映，在网络平台遇见了买卖论文、代写代投的机构。这些商家承诺"包过包 发""快速见刊"，借此获取不法收入，破坏学术环境。 代发论文的网络店铺除了承诺"包过包发"，还表示可提供代写服务。 北京海淀区读者汪女士在某平台找到一家名为"正刊世界"的店铺。对方称"没有文章我们可以全 包"，完全按照客户的需求拟题写作。代写代发明码标价，一篇普刊价格在4000元至6000元不等，一篇 核心期刊论文则报价4万至6万元。 "您要是明年6月用，现在得立马安排。"客服以期刊版面紧缺、投刊价格逐年上涨为由，催促汪女 士及早下单，"马上2026年又要涨价了，现在安排是价格最合适的。" 另一家宣称可发核心期刊的店铺商品链接中，有评论称："同事两年前找他们发过核心期刊，所以 我也直接找了他们。"据客服介绍，写作到发表周期为3至6个月，"走内部渠道投刊"。 【责任编辑：张胶】 一些店铺采用了更加隐蔽的推广方式。汪女士反映，有论文代写代发机构的客服添加她的个人账 号，不断私信推销广告。"客服通过扫描公开二维码加入了校园活动群，伪 ...

"普刊基本都能发""国庆活动北大核心期刊1.4万元，即可赠送知网普刊一篇""不见刊全额退款"……近 日，一些读者来信反映，在网络平台遇见了买卖论文、代写代投的机构。这些商家承诺"包过包发""快 速见刊"，借此获取不法收入，破坏学术环境。 对于上述现象，中国人民大学教育学院教授胡娟认为，一些学校学术评价体系中的"唯论文"现象，催生 了论文买卖市场，"代写的论文往往缺乏原创性、思想性，只要同行评议专家能认真审阅，不难发现问 题。" 胡娟认为，在学术人才评价中，若只重论文数量、期刊等级等指标，忽视研究方向、成果质量与学术潜 力，便容易"只见论文不见人"。对学术机构的评价也普遍将论文数量、期刊等级纳入指标，压力层层传 导，师生可能为完成任务而放弃潜心钻研，甚至转向购买论文。 另一家宣称可发核心期刊的店铺商品链接中，有评论称："同事两年前找他们发过核心期刊，所以我也 直接找了他们。"据客服介绍，写作到发表周期为3至6个月，"走内部渠道投刊"。 点开客服的推广信息，大量稿件录用通知映入眼帘，所涉领域广泛。"今年又一批刊物要截止了，需要 预约的抓紧时间联系""专业可靠质量有保障，一对一服务""看着别人论文都纷纷出版，晋升机 ...

齐鲁晚报.齐鲁壹点评论员王学钧 很多人可能都没有想到，"论文代写产业"会火成这样。 近日，央视《财经调查》栏目起底论文"黑工厂"，一条分工明确、运作成熟的论文代写产业链浮出水 面。在这条隐秘的链条上，电商平台以"查重服务"为幌子接单，社交媒体上以"论文辅导"为名引 流，"写作工厂"组织写手用AI工具批量生产。一个写手一天能炮制各种论文30篇，一家网店一年能接论 文代写"业务"40000单。 论文代写就是论文造假。这种"产业"的存在，是对学术生态乃至整个社会风气的一种戕害。 大量虚假论文充斥学术期刊与评审系统，破坏了学术研究的真实性与严肃性，浪费科研资源，阻碍知识 创新。只要肯花钱，就能买来论文，不用下真功夫搞科研。这一"捷径"的长期存在，会形成投机取巧者 获利、踏实努力者吃亏的不良导向，败坏社会风气。 仅有这些还不行。要根治论文代写这一"顽疾"，还得在以下两个方面动真格的。 一要做足"减法"。应该看到，"论文代写产业"也是"应运而生"，代写市场的繁荣，根源在于论文需求的 旺盛。从学业评价、职称评审到课题结项，论文在诸多评价体系中是"硬通货"。学术成果直接与毕业、 晋升、资源分配挂钩，催生出一个庞大且有些畸形的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need to curb the rising trend of academic superficiality, which undermines scientific integrity and harms the academic ecosystem [1][2] Group 1: Issues in Academic Research - Recent incidents, such as undergraduates publishing 14 SCI papers, highlight a growing trend of seeking quick results and superficial achievements in academia [1] - The pursuit of quantity over quality leads to the proliferation of low-quality, duplicate, and fraudulent research outputs, wasting societal resources and hindering effective technological innovation [1] Group 2: Evaluation System and Its Impact - An inadequate evaluation system is identified as a significant root cause of academic superficiality, where the focus is primarily on the number of papers and projects, affecting promotions and awards [1][2] - The current "number-based heroism" evaluation system imposes heavy pressure on researchers, making it difficult for them to engage in deep, meaningful research [1] Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - To combat academic superficiality, there is a call for reforming the evaluation system to focus on innovation, quality, effectiveness, and contribution [2] - Establishing a supportive environment for researchers, including protections for young talent and a clear distinction between long-term breakthroughs and short-term results, is essential [2] - Strengthening the integrity of academic research through mechanisms that penalize misconduct is crucial for maintaining academic purity [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the innovative educational practices at Westlake University, emphasizing the need to break the homogenization of education and cultivate truly innovative scientists in the era of artificial intelligence [1][4]. Group 1: Educational Philosophy and Goals - Westlake University aims to cultivate "future scientists" and "problem solvers with human care," encouraging students to engage with current issues while aspiring for greater achievements [5]. - The university's educational innovation aligns with its founding vision, focusing on deepening the practice of nurturing talent over the past seven years [5]. Group 2: Reforming Evaluation Systems - Westlake University is implementing a new academic evaluation system that does not prioritize the quantity of academic papers or citation rates, instead focusing on the originality and substantive progress of research [6]. - The goal is to break free from the constraints of traditional metrics like "only papers" and "only impact factors," promoting a return to the essence of academic research [6]. Group 3: Innovative Talent Development - The university seeks to create an innovative educational system that "breaks the average and expands the variance," focusing on liberating thinking, reshaping evaluation standards, and reconstructing the educational ecosystem [7]. - Emphasis is placed on tolerating uncertainty, encouraging unconventional thinking, and breaking down interdisciplinary barriers to foster significant innovations [7]. Group 4: Regional Advantages and Future Aspirations - Westlake University, as a new type of research university, is positioned in Shenzhen, a city known for its reform and innovation, aligning its mission with the city's spirit [8]. - The university aims to attract top global scientists in the next 10-20 years, while acknowledging current challenges such as international uncertainties [9]. Group 5: Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Education - In the context of rapid AI development, students are encouraged to master foundational knowledge and skills, using critical thinking to understand and leverage AI for future innovations [10]. - The article highlights the importance of adapting educational principles to prepare students for the evolving landscape shaped by artificial intelligence [10].

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].