In May, it is time for doctoral and master's thesis defense season. Behind the busy preparation and anticipation of the students is fear, "the hometown is more timid", "dare not ask the blind review", and the biggest worry is whether the blind evaluation of the paper can be successfully passed. At present, the number of master's students is very large, and the quality of training and the level of dissertations are uneven.
In the past two days, an online article has spread all over the network and beyond. The author is Professor Lu Dewen of the School of Sociology of Wuhan University, and his article is entitled "How to evaluate and use "malicious review"? An Analysis Based on the Evaluation Opinions of a Doctoral Dissertation in Wuhan University. The first part of the article briefly explains the background of the writing:
Academic evaluation is the core system of academic production mechanism, which has been widely used in the fields of achievement publication, project evaluation, professional title evaluation, and talent evaluation. In recent years, in order to avoid human interference, the two-way blind review system (both the reviewer and the assessee are anonymous) has been widely used. However, the blind review system has also created the phenomenon of malicious blind review, which has seriously affected the fairness of academic evaluation, the reasonable rights and interests of the reviewers, and infringed on academic innovation.
A doctoral dissertation I supervised was maliciously reviewed. This review opinion violates the basic principles of academic review, and compared with the limited knowledge shown by the reviewers and the level of insufficient ability to undertake such a serious academic review work, the arrogance of the review attitude, the arbitrariness of the judgment, and the subjectivity of the standards are breathtaking.
But such a malicious review may ruin the academic future of an outstanding young scholar. Such a careless disregard for human life not only comes from the malicious intent of the reviewers, but also from the irresponsible mechanical use of the competent departments of the relevant training units on the evaluation results.
It is an urgent task to correctly evaluate and use malicious reviews. This is of great significance to safeguard the rights and interests of the reviewees, improve the academic evaluation system, and strengthen the guarantee of the academic innovation system.
The doctoral dissertation supervised by Prof. Lu is entitled "Business Groups and Their Business Behaviors in County Society: Based on Fieldwork in County Counties". Next, he analyzed why the blind evaluation expert's review was "malicious" and how it was "malicious". It is a pity that when the author wrote this article, Lu Wen had deleted it on the Internet, and I can only give a rough idea from memory. According to Mr. Lu, this doctoral dissertation was submitted for blind evaluation according to the "old rules" of Wuhan University, and one person was unqualified; In the blink of an eye, 2024 is coming, and there are new rules for the New Year. According to the new regulations (to be implemented in 2024), the doctoral student's dissertation will be carefully revised and then evaluated, but unfortunately such a "malicious reviewer" will be encountered, and the result may make the doctoral student's previous achievements be wasted and leave (according to the new regulations, there will be no chance of additional evaluation). This doctoral student has worked hard and performed well, won high-level scholarships during his studies, published 6 papers in journal C (including 5 independent works, and another in cooperation with his supervisor), and his academic attitude, academic ability, and academic achievements are excellent, which has been fully recognized by his supervisor and other teachers.
If everything is true, this doctoral student is really very lucky, and the idea is very low. But this is by no means an isolated case. Whether the management system of our university should be adjusted according to these circumstances, and whether the system should be revised and improved may be what the majority of teachers and students are more concerned about. With the continuous expansion of doctoral students (in fact, the "Great Leap Forward" in doctoral enrollment is really not a good thing, and will not be discussed here), coupled with the comprehensive promotion of the blind evaluation system, the original review expert pool needs to be continuously "expanded". This expanded "big library" of experts is like a big forest. When the forest is big, there are all kinds of birds, and when the "library" is big, there are also all kinds of "experts". Every PhD student's dissertation is likely to meet a handful of strange experts. Those experts may have a bad mentality and like to deliberately embarrass people, or ask Qi Gao to read anyone's papers and feel too low, or they don't know how to pretend to understand if they don't learn anything. When a blind review of a PhD meets an expert like this, the results can be imagined; If the additional comments "meet on a narrow road" again" and "hate each other", it may be the fate of Professor Lu's disciples, and the house leak happened to rain overnight.
In fact, this phenomenon is not only in Wuhan University, but also in other universities where teachers and students are more or less trapped by blind evaluation. It's just that Wuhan University, as a famous university, has stricter rules and higher requirements. Since the doctoral supervisors and doctoral students who are most familiar with the situation feel that this method needs to be improved, and since this situation cannot be completely avoided, the author dares to recommend the method in some sports events (such as gymnastics and diving): remove the highest score, remove the lowest score, and then calculate the average score. For example, if there are 5 expert reviews, if 4 excellent and 1 fails, the final scoring result should be excellent according to the middle 3. If the average score given by the other three experts is still low (e.g., less than 70 points) after removing the highest and lowest scores, you can consider revising and adding additional scores. The specific rules can be set and mastered by each school. However, the general principle is that the future of those outstanding doctoral students should not be ruined because of the "self-reliance" or "uniqueness" of individual "brick families". The implementation of anonymous two-way blind evaluation of doctoral dissertations is an internationally accepted method, and how to continuously improve it according to our actual conditions needs to be taken seriously by universities and education management departments. Being responsible for doctoral students is not only responsible for the individual parties, but also responsible for the society and the country.
May, and May again. What awaits doctoral students is not just "May flowers"! But we look forward to a beautiful May with more fairness and reasonableness, more kindness and warmth.
✦
•
✦
Recommended in the past
Without Ye Shengtao, there would be no "Xinhua Dictionary" - the twenty-eighth story of the modern book industry
Ye Shengtao and Ding Ling's "Literal Origin" - Twenty-seven Stories of the Modern Book Industry
Ye Shengtao's "Move" - the twenty-sixth story of the modern book industry
Ye Shengtao's "Tong Zi Gong" of drinking - the twenty-fifth story of the modern book industry
"Guizishan Essays" - the book of books and the twenty-first of the ramblings
April in the world is a good reading
Book recommendations
About the Author
Fan Jun, a native of Jingmen City, Hubei Province, holds a doctorate in history. He is a second-level professor and doctoral supervisor of the School of Liberal Arts, Central China Normal University, the head of the doctoral program in cultural communication, an adjunct professor of the National Cultural Industry Research Center of Central China Normal University, and the director of the Cultural Communication Research Center. He used to be the editor-in-chief, president and chairman of Central China Normal University Press Co., Ltd., the chairman of Huada Hongtu Cultural Development Company, and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Central China Normal University. He is a member of the National Steering Committee for Publishing Education in Colleges and Universities, the vice president of the Editorial and Publishing Research Association of the Chinese Journalism History Society, a member of the Academic Committee of the Taofen Foundation, a member of the Hubei Provincial Federation of Social Affairs, the president of the Hubei International Friends Association, the vice president of the Hubei Provincial Editors Society, and the vice president of the Hubei Periodicals Association.
He has published personal works such as "Catalogue of Research on the History of Chinese Publishing Culture", "Essays on the History of Chinese Publishing Culture", "Essays on Publishing Culture", "Special Research on Ancient Chinese Poetry Editing", "A Comprehensive Study on the Publishing History of the Communist Party of China", "Where Does the "Power" of Cultural Soft Power Come From", "Twenty Advertisements in China's Modern Book Industry", "Traces of Years of Books", "Su Dongpo's Philosophy of Life", etc. He is the co-author of "Research on the Enterprise System of the Commercial Press (1897-1949)", "Special Research on Publishing Culture and Publishing Industry", and "Notes and Essays of the Past Dynasties". He is the editor-in-chief of "The History of Publishing in Chinese and Foreign Universities", "Research on the System of Publishing Enterprises in Modern and Modern China", and "Central China Academic Communication Forum" (multiple volumes). He has published more than 100 professional academic papers in core journals, dozens of essays and essays, of which more than 40 papers have been reprinted and excerpted by Xinhua Digest and newspapers and periodicals copied by the National People's Congress. He has presided over a number of scientific research projects such as the National Social Science Fund Project, the National Science and Technology Support Project, and the Humanities and Social Science Fund Project of the Ministry of Education, and his research results have won the first prize of Hubei Provincial Social Science Achievement Award, the first prize of Wuhan Social Science Achievement Award, and the Paper Award of China Outstanding Publication Award. He has won the honors of the 5th National Top 100 Publishing Workers, the Advanced Worker of the Press and Publication System of Hubei Province, the First Hubei Publishing Government (Person) Award, the Provincial Government Special Allowance Expert, and the First University Publishing Character Award of China University Press, and was selected as the first batch of "Five Batches" of talents in the propaganda and cultural system of Hubei Province, the second "Hubei Cultural Master", and the first batch of "National Press and Publication Industry Leading Talents".
Editor in charge: Zheng Chao
long
press
Welcome to follow
sweep
yard
Published six
—The publisher's family—
All the content of the six official accounts published is original.
Do not use without permission.
Welcome to cooperate and reprint.