the number of publications the primary evaluation criterion

When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. Sadly, such measures, though far from perfect, are the best criteria we have for now, unless we want to go back to ‘connections’ and ‘recommendations’.

However, the rest of this opinion piece is missing the point. China is now the frontrunner in most fields of research, not only in quantity but also in quality. This is due to a combination of high and consistent funding in education and research, and having a long-term vision and detailed policy to execute it. Whether Zhengzhou or Oxford University is ranked higher today is irrelevant, because Zhengzhou, merely by virtue of being in China, will get the best educated students in the world in the decades to come.

The fierce, unhealthy competition the article observes is a result of having too many candidates, and cannot be fixed by changing the criterion of evaluation. No amount of corruption crackdowns can solve this supply-demand mismatch. The only solution is to create more positions in research institutions and higher education, but this will take time.

Some sections are pure drivel. Take this:-

Chinese researchers, moreover, have seen the share of American co-authors in their international collaborations plummet from nearly 50% in 2018 to less than 30% in 2023 – a trend that worries Nature, which describes this as “bad news for everyone.”

It takes one minute of thought to figure out why this is happening. Why are journalists so stupid?