本周，有几条新闻引起了我们的质量控制编辑 Stewart Dods 先生的注意，下面列举出三条，每条新闻都给出了开放的结尾，他希望借此平台与大家共同探讨一下： A number of news stories arouse my attention this week that I wish to share with you all. Below I have left some questions for topics of discussion: Are Chinese researchers under too much pressure? A recent study by The Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China (ISTIC) suggests that China suffers poor global science impact because of the importance getting research published, arguing that the current systems of funding allocation emphasize publication quantity over publication quality. One of the reasons why Chinese research struggles to impact the international scientific community is researchers unfamiliarity with the publication industry. Another reason is that the English language is the most common in journals, which is an additional obstacle for researchers whose native language in not English. Will the current systems in China allow for scientific indicators, such as the one from the ISTIC, to help decide on how funding is allocated? Is a leading edge scientific career without postgraduate study possible? The BGI in Shenzhen, formerly known as the Beijing Genomics Institute, has undertaken a brave new initiative regarding scientific training . Conventionally, to become a principal investigator in cutting edge research, a scientist will need to finish post-graduate, and even post-doctorate, studies. The BGI are aiming to take on board graduate students and train them up using some of the most advanced genomic sequencing technology in the world to become high class investigators in bioinformatics. As such, they will be expected to publish as first authors, collaborate with other leading international institutes, attend conferences and give interviews. Is the BGIs undertaking a sign of things to come, where in-house industrial training becomes more suitable than post graduate study? Nature Publishing Group releases the Asia-Pacific Publishing Index The Asia-Pacific region including South Asia spreads from India, goes up to China and Japan and all the way down to Australia and New Zealand and accounts for about one half of the worlds population. In 1998, only Japan and Australia had published more than three articles in the NPG family of journals. Last year, that figured had considerably increased. As such NPG have released the Asia-Pacific Publishing Index , offering details by country, institution and research journal as well as historical data, as a gateway to some of the best basic research coming out of the region. Will the Index will be a useful tool for identifying key research papers from the Asia Pacific region or a distraction from the real issue that non-native English speaking researchers struggle to get published in high impact factor journals? 下方中文供大家参考 中国的科研人员是否压力过大？ 中国科学技术信息研究所 (ISTIC) 最近的一项 研究 显示，由于过度重视发表论文的重要性，中国在国际科学界的影响力不尽人意，这表明目前的科研经费分配体系更倾向于量而不是质。中国的科研成果冲击国际学术界倍感艰难的原因之一是科研人员对出版业的陌生，而另外一个因素是国际期刊普遍采用英语作为文章发表的语种，这对于母语非英语国家的作者来说又是一道额外的障碍。中国的现有体系是否能允许科学实力指标 (如 ISTIC 的研究课题) 来决定科研经费的分配呢？ 前沿科学研究是否只有研究生才能担此重任？ 深圳的华大基因（前身北京华大基因研究中心）在 学术培训 领域作出了大胆的创新。传统观点中，要成为前沿科学的主力研究成员，研究生甚至是博士后学历是必需的。华大基因正在尝试聘用本科生并就全球最先进的基因组测序技术对其加以培训，力图把他们打造成生物信息领域的高级研究人员。与其他研究人员一样，他们也会以第一作者的身份发表论文，与其他一流的国际机构共同合作，参加学术会议并接受采访。行业内部培训的优势是否会超越研究生教育？华大基因的举措是否是预示着一个新时代的到来？ 自然出版集团推出Asia-Pacific Publishing Index 亚太地区包括南亚的印度，北至东亚的中国、日本，并一直延伸到澳大利亚和新西兰，人口约占全球人口总数的二分之一。1998年，只有日本和澳大利亚的作者在自然出版集团旗下的期刊中的发表了三篇以上的文章。去年，这一数字有了明显的改观。鉴于此形势，自然出版集团推出了 Asia-Pacific Publishing Index ，可以根据国家、科研单位、期刊以及历史数据提供相应信息，为亚太地区优秀的基础研究成果的面世提供了途径。这一索引的出现是否成为了筛选亚太地区重要科研论文的有效解决方案，还是对母语非英语研究人员很难在具有较高影响因子的期刊中发表文章这一根本问题的回避？
标签: ISTIC
