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].

Core Viewpoint - The publication of a flawed medical paper by two gynecologists from Fujian Provincial People's Hospital, which incorrectly reported a 64% male patient ratio in a study on endometriosis, highlights significant issues in academic integrity and the peer review process in the medical field [1] Group 1: Issues in Academic Integrity - The paper's blatant data fabrication contradicts medical knowledge, yet it was published in a journal without any scrutiny from editors or hospital personnel, indicating a failure in the peer review process [1] - The incident reflects a deeper problem of formalism in academic evaluation, where meeting basic formatting requirements may take precedence over the validity of the research [1] Group 2: Motivations Behind Academic Misconduct - The underlying motivation for such academic dishonesty is linked to unreasonable promotion mechanisms within the medical profession, where publishing papers is often prioritized over practical clinical experience [1] - A gray market has emerged around the publication of papers, driven by the need for professionals to meet publication quotas for career advancement [2] Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - The National Health Commission has advocated for a reevaluation of assessment standards to eliminate the overemphasis on publications, encouraging healthcare workers to focus on frontline patient care [2] - Reforming the promotion system to align with industry practices could lead to a reduction in the publication of nonsensical papers, ultimately enhancing the quality of medical services and restoring public trust [2]