Why do some Nobel Prize winners only publish their papers in very low-level journals and then win prizes for them?

Nature magazine should be very authoritative. However, a Japanese Nobel Prize winner counted the papers collected by Nature over the years. It is found that about 90% of the papers have problems. This shows that scientific research is constantly improving. Some scientific research results are problematic, but the level at that time was not found. At the other extreme, some scientific research was too advanced for the authorities at that time to understand, and it was normal to publish it in low-level journals.

Just as the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the President of the United States, other Nobel Prizes will be awarded randomly according to the needs of westerners. For example, the "photoelectric effect" ignores the electromagnetic waves released by the "magnetic moment" when metal hydrogen cuts the earth's magnetic field lines.

This is normal. In fact, it also shows that the worship of publications in domestic universities and many domestic scientific research institutions is a joke.

To understand the reasons, we must first understand the process of periodical publishing. There are basically two kinds of manuscript selection for academic journals, one is called editorial manuscript selection, and the other is called peer review. The so-called editor's selection of manuscripts is easy to understand, that is, journal editors review all manuscripts and then decide whether to publish them. Peer review means that periodical editors only do some basic screening work, and generally conduct a simple preliminary examination of the format specification and author qualification of the article itself. As for whether the actual level of the paper is worth publishing, experts in this field will evaluate it. After the examination and approval, it will be published.

Peer review is a mature mode of manuscript selection for foreign academic journals since 1970s and 1980s. It was introduced to China at the turn of the century. At present, it has become the mainstream manuscript selection mode of most publications. There are still a few journals whose editors select manuscripts, and their academic status is generally not high.

Therefore, to publish papers in high-quality journals now, we must pass peer review.

Let me talk about the advantages and disadvantages of this system first.

The original intention of this mechanism design is twofold. First, with the gradual deepening and refinement of scientific research, it is impossible for academic editors to understand the development of all fields in their academic fields, which makes it difficult for them to judge papers in very professional sub-fields. At this time, it is indeed reasonable for peer experts with judgment ability to bear this responsibility. Second, no matter who is an editor, he will have his own preference for manuscript selection, which will bring subjective distortion. Introducing peer review and weakening editing power can reduce the subjectivity of editors' manuscript selection and make the manuscript selection process of academic journals more objective.

It should be said that this idea has been realized to a certain extent in later practice. Therefore, it is not a big problem to regard this idea as the advantage of peer review. However, peer review also has some defects. With the implementation of this system, the time is getting longer and the defects are becoming more and more obvious.

First, peer review is easy to form a small circle culture. Because there are not many scholars who can participate in this evaluation process, many scholars have connections, so a small circle phenomenon will be formed to support and control academic power. This has actually caused a serious negative impact on academic development, not only in China, but also in western academic circles.

Second, the peer review model is more inclined to support the publication of conventional research results than the publication of breakthrough research results. This principle is relatively simple and groundbreaking. Because of its breakthrough, many existing research results will lose their value immediately in a short time, so it is easy to be opposed by a large number of stakeholders in the academic field. In this case, if these people have the power of peer review, then they will prevent such achievements from being published in journals. Therefore, the peer review model is actually not conducive to the publication of groundbreaking research results. This is also where many foreign scholars criticize this mode of manuscript selection.

In addition to peer review mode, it is difficult for top journals to publish papers with breakthrough historical value because these journals require higher perfection of research results. However, many breakthrough research can't achieve the perfect results in a short time, so it loses a very important advantage compared with conventional research.

Looking at the award of Nobel Prize for many years, it is not uncommon that such top papers can only be published in non-top or even many unknown journals. For example, Lewis, a famous development economist, published a paper on demographic dividend in a university journal. Some scholars' papers are not even published, but only spread in the industry. Some are conference papers. Even some scholars' research results are disseminated in the form of reports.

It can be seen that the theory of periodical worship prevailing in colleges and universities in China is very ridiculous. Most papers were cited less than five times within 10 years after publication. There are even quite a few papers written without any quotation. Most papers in top journals can't stand the test of time, and few people can still be mentioned after 10 years.