This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, NZ. China's academic autocracy must go. Nature 477, 407 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/477407b
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/477407b
This article is cited by
-
Activation of NLRC4 downregulates TLR5-mediated antibody immune responses against flagellin
Cellular and Molecular Immunology (2015)
-
TLR activation regulates damage-associated molecular pattern isoforms released during pyroptosis
The EMBO Journal (2012)
-
Immunology: Out on patrol
Nature China (2011)
Bjoern Brembs
Dear Nai-Zhuo Zhao, you write: "I contend that even an imperfect law is better than no law" I think you might reconsider your stance in the light of the evidence. This particular 'law' is actually quite objectively worse than no law:
1. The impact factor is not computed, it is negotiated (source )
2. The impact factor cannot be reproduced, even if it were computed and not negotiated (source )
3. The impact factor is not statistically sound, even if it were reproducible and computed (source )
Surely, throwing dice ('no law') would be better than a made up measure, concocted behind closed doors between multi-billion dollar corporations in order to siphon off yet more tax-payer funds from powerless libraries?
D. C. Dai
quantity or quality? fish or bear?
I partially agree with Nai-Zhuo Zhao's view concerning the impact factor law governing the present research system in China, due to its visible positive effect which pushes chinese scientists forward to better research outputs, that is,a large amount of papers have been successfully produced in last more than 10 years.
However, Zhao ignores the side-effect of this law, which make chinese scientists near-sighted who just want manufacturing papers rather than the basic role and spirit of scientific research. Please notice that the 2011 Lasker award to Tu YouYou (http://www.laskerfoundation... obviously says 'No' to Zhao's view. With the strict impact factor law I do not think China could have the second Tu YouYou in the future.
Now I think the essential thing for the chinese academic community is how to balance the positive and side effect of the impact factor law. What China really needs is not the quantity of publication but its quality of research.
Naizhuo Zhao
It is not my purpose to discuss whether quantity or quality is more reasonable. My target was to state the importance of eradicating the interference of executive power. Granted that Chinese academia uses new evaluation rules emphasizing papers? quality, the truth is that most researchers who have met the new evaluation requirements but do not have good relationships with leading executives, still cannot obtain access to the best scientific projects.
Liangjun Hu
"an imperfect law is better than no law"? This is really an extremely absurd argument I have ever heard, and surprisingly it is read in Nature! I understand this argument is a simple error in commonsense that challenges our human kind. Would you like to judge the favor amongst good law, no law and imperfect law to scientific community? I think even a child would prefer to live with no law rather than a bad law you favor.