Guangming Network commentator: Post-90s doctoral guide controversy: leave it to professional judgment

【Reading tips】"Post-90s" doctoral supervisors are often recognized as "sisters"? Her profile is eye-catching!

Guangming Network commentator: In the past two days, the report that "huazhong University of Science and Technology has a post-90s high-value doctoral supervisor" has caught fire, and the person concerned is Hu Yue, an associate professor and doctoral supervisor of the Wuhan National Research Center for Optoelectronics.

The report mentioned that she has been publishing academic achievements since she was an undergraduate, and was promoted to associate professor of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in 2018 and became a doctoral supervisor in 2019. In the past five years, Hu Yue has published more than 60 SCI papers, including 21 papers by the first author and corresponding author. At the same time, it is also mentioned that because of her "youthful and lively face", she is often mistaken for "sister of the master".

However, she then sparked controversy online. Some of her publicity reports were scanned word for word, including college entrance examination results, academic achievements, and the ultra-high output of 60 SCI articles in 5 years. Even speculation about her family background began to be suspected that she had "superior guidance".

Objectively speaking, 60 SCI papers published in 5 years are indeed very prominent, but must this pose a problem? Of course not. Academic achievements have always only looked at the true and false, not the quantity. The public questions scholars out of "numerical abnormalities", and can only make peripheral conjectures and accusations, which may not be within the academic scope.

Academia, of course, will have geniuses, and there is no need to be surprised by those who are superior. If scholars are only framed by "it should be so", then the academic community may also be boring. If there are shining academic stars, of course, they should be given plenty of space, and their surprising achievements should be treated normally.

It should also be emphasized that the academic life of a scholar is very long, especially with the large amount of academic information on the Internet, the span and breadth of a scholar's scrutiny have also expanded. Therefore, whether Hu Yue's scientific research achievements are excellent or not may wish to be handed over to the professional judgment of the academic community, and if there is a problem, it will be handled according to the rules. Public opinion should respect the threshold of the profession, and academic peer review will naturally play a role in screening the survival of the fittest, and this "pickiness" will likely accompany a scholar's life.

A scholar from a professional field is scrutinized in the public eye, and the event itself is worth thinking about. In fact, this scholar entered the field of public opinion by "reducing the dimension" of academic discourse into popular discourse, and then reached the level that it can be "judged" by ordinary readers.

For example, in publicity, what stands out is her youthful beauty and promising future, and her works are highly prolific, but as for the professional academic evaluation, it is vague, and it is difficult for readers to understand the value of the paper. Then there is a paradox scene, only papers, only titles, only academic qualifications and other issues that have been criticized by the academic community, in the propaganda of scholars, they have been taken out, and the appearance that has nothing to do with academia has also been emphasized. The reason is that there is no other reason, so it is easy to be understood by the public, and it is also easy to have topics and traffic.

Because of this, these scholars are inevitably examined by the public with a "layman's perspective". This kind of judgment is often not necessarily professional, and it does not matter to a scholar's scientific identification. However, it may lead to various unexpected public opinion storms, causing pressure on the parties concerned and interfering with professional academic evaluation.

This is not uncommon, in recent years, many colleges and universities have almost launched a batch of young, beautiful, radiant academic stars, academic worship, young worship, face value worship mixed together. And whenever these characters appear, it is almost inevitable to brush the screen in the field of public opinion. Some people are envious, some people feel the anxiety of their peers, and of course, some people dig up their academic background and try to disenchant them.

The circle-breaking behavior of people in the academic circle is of course beneficial and helps to enrich the public's understanding of scientific research. But it should also be understood that there is a threshold for scholarship after all, the exploration in the hall may not be suitable for the board in the hall, and the most critical evaluation of scholarship must come from the academic circle itself and from the recognition of academic colleagues.

Academics have their own coordinate system, and it is easy to produce visual distortion when entering other dimensions. What kind of perspective society should use to introduce and understand people in academic circles is enough to provide some reflection.

As mentioned earlier, if there is indeed an academic genius, society should be tolerant. This "inclusion" is twofold, and they don't need colored glasses or filters, so they can perform as much as they want in the academic field.

(Please indicate the source of the reprint "Guangming Network", the author "Guangming Network Commentator")

【Previous】The problem of "sub-health" of college teachers should not be underestimated

Source: Guangming Network