Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by humanities scholars in China regarding the publication of papers in top-tier journals (C journals), highlighting the imbalance between the increasing number of scholars and the decreasing availability of publication opportunities [1][4][21]. Group 1: Publication Challenges - The number of humanities scholars has increased significantly from 501,000 in 2013 to 979,000 in 2023, while the number of published papers in C journals has decreased from 92,100 to 74,100 over the same period, representing a nearly 20% decline [2][4]. - The competition for publication in C journals is intense, with many scholars waiting for extended periods for their papers to be reviewed, often leading to multiple revisions and eventual rejections [7][10]. - A significant portion of C journal publications is dominated by a small number of high-ranking institutions, with top universities accounting for 59% of publications despite representing only 10% of all universities [8][10]. Group 2: Academic Pressure and Career Implications - Many universities have adopted a "non-promotion means departure" policy, putting immense pressure on young scholars to publish in C journals within a limited timeframe, often leading to high levels of anxiety and burnout [14][18]. - The average research cycle for major funding projects, such as the National Social Science Fund, is lengthy, averaging 6.38 years, with less than 50% achieving favorable outcomes, further complicating the publication landscape for humanities scholars [15][18]. - The pressure to publish has led some scholars to resort to "quick and easy" research topics, compromising the quality of their work in order to meet publication quotas [18][21].

Core Viewpoint - The "non-promotion means departure" system in higher education has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding its fairness and impact on young faculty members, contrasting with its acceptance in corporate environments [1][2]. Group 1: Differences Between Corporate and Academic Environments - In corporate settings, employee dismissal typically incurs economic costs under labor laws, which limits arbitrary high turnover rates [2]. - In contrast, public universities often have less stringent dismissal processes, leading to potential financial burdens on departing faculty, such as returning relocation and research funds [2]. - Corporate layoffs are usually structural and predictable, while academic institutions may experience high turnover rates without prior warning, as seen in a case where only 20% of newly hired faculty achieved long-term positions after six years [2]. Group 2: Acceptance of Dismissal Practices - Society generally accepts corporate layoffs due to the profit-driven nature of businesses, where performance-based cultures are prevalent [3]. - Academic institutions are traditionally viewed as places of truth-seeking and education, making the introduction of market-driven dismissal practices controversial [3]. - The career mobility of corporate employees allows for easier transitions to new roles, while academic faculty face significant barriers to changing careers, often leading to a complete reset of their academic resources [3][4]. Group 3: Targeting Young Faculty - The "non-promotion means departure" policy primarily affects young faculty, while senior professors and administrative staff face less pressure, often due to their established positions and influence [6][10]. - Young faculty are expected to meet high performance standards, with failure resulting in dismissal rather than salary reduction, creating a high-stakes environment [7][10]. - The disparity in treatment reflects a broader issue within academic institutions, where senior faculty control key evaluation processes and are less incentivized to reform the system [10][11]. Group 4: Implications of the System - The current system reflects a short-term, profit-driven approach to resource allocation and talent evaluation in many universities [11]. - The focus on quantity over quality in research outputs is exacerbated by the "non-promotion means departure" policy, pushing young faculty to pursue quick results rather than long-term, innovative research [12]. - Recent discussions among policymakers and some universities indicate a potential shift away from this system, highlighting the need for comprehensive reforms to address its shortcomings [12].

美国哈佛大学是"非升即走"制度的起源地，也曾因该制度错失英才。美国科学家维克托·安布罗斯，就 曾因研究过于"超前"，未能在哈佛大学拿到终身教职，转投其他高校继续其研究，2024年获得诺贝尔生 理学或医学奖。 "非升即走"制度并非一无是处。建立"能者上、平者让、庸者下、劣者汰"的用人机制，依然符合高校发 展需求。但要让其更好地发挥作用，必须进行改革与完善。多所高校高调取消"非升即走"，不是回 到"大锅饭"，而是对异化现象的集体纠偏。竞争可以有，但不应只剩竞争。从"淘汰焦虑"到"护航成 长"，拐点已至。 然而，高产出也伴生高争议。一是评价标准失衡。晋升标准过度依赖论文数量和项目级别，形成"唯论 文""唯帽子"导向，同时教学、社会服务等职能被边缘化；二是淘汰压力过大。有的高校聘期淘汰率超 过90%，1个编制要招来10多位博士"赛跑"，被质疑"割韭菜"，还有的高校"临时涨价"，中途改变聘期前 约定的晋升标准，教师们永远不知道做到什么程度才能达标；三是学术生态扭曲。部分高校对青年科研 人员"重考核轻培养"，以"数"代评，以"走"代管，这会催生大量"短平快"研究，甚至滋生数据造假、论 文挂名等学术不端行为。 博士生过剩、 ...

Core Viewpoint - The health crisis among young university teachers is alarming, with over 90% of university teachers showing abnormal health conditions and nearly 70% in a sub-healthy state [1][2]. Group 1: Health Issues - A study from Peking University indicates that the detection rates of chronic diseases such as hypertension and hyperglycemia among teachers have been rising annually from 2014 to 2018 [2]. - Compared to other age groups, university teachers have a significantly higher abnormal rate for tumor-related diseases, with thyroid and breast nodules detected at rates 9.95% and 7.42% higher, respectively [4]. - The psychological health of university teachers is also concerning, with nearly 25% of scientific workers experiencing depressive symptoms and over 50% showing anxiety symptoms, which is higher than in other industries [6][9]. Group 2: Workload and Stress - The average weekly working hours for university teachers have increased to 45 hours, with some top-tier universities reporting up to 59 hours [5]. - A significant portion of the stress faced by university teachers stems from research and publication demands, with 88% of teachers experiencing moderate to severe stress [12]. - The competitive academic environment has led to a blurring of work-life boundaries, with many teachers working through traditional breaks and holidays [13]. Group 3: Historical Context and Trends - The health crisis among university teachers, particularly young ones, has been a long-standing issue, with previous studies indicating that 70% of intellectuals were on the brink of "overwork death" as early as 2006 [11]. - The current pressures faced by young teachers are exacerbated by a tightening job market and increasing expectations for academic output, leading to a higher incidence of health issues among younger faculty [15]. Group 4: Policy and Reform - Recent policy initiatives aim to alleviate the burdens on young researchers, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to academic responsibilities [20][21]. - Some universities are exploring reforms such as eliminating the "non-promotion means dismissal" policy and promoting more humane evaluation methods [21].