考博作文

2009年清华大学考博英语作文题目及范文》关键词：考博英语写作  {w}
PV5<  
题目： I5>HB;Q  
近些年学术界出现了，学者们盲目追求发表文章的数量，而忽视文章质量的现象，请以“quantity and quality of works”为题目阐明个人观点，书写工整、字数不少于300字。考博.中国 ;2kiEATQ 1  
Fe%Q8RIh_  
参考范文： Y(78qs1w  
The past years witnessed considerable improvement in scientific research in this country. One typical sign is the mounting number of papers published in SCI and SSCI periodicals. However, the quality of many such papers and works is doubtable. One proof is that the average citation frequency of these papers has remained unchanged for years. This phenomenon has given rise to heated debate. Personally, I believe that this phenomenon should be viewed from more than one perspective. SoS[yr  
On the one hand, it must be admitted that there has appeared an undesirable trend in Chinese academic circle in the past years, that is, too much emphasis has been put on the number of papers published rather than the quality of these papers, or substantial efforts and contribution in scientific research. Taking a look around, one can find examples too many to enumerate. The number of papers, especially the number of papers published in SCI or SSCI periodicals has been regarded as the most important or the single criteria in uating a scientific researcher. It is even directly related to his salary and opportunity for promotion. This trend has led Chinese academy to an unhealthy road of development. As we can see, many scholars have become more of writers than researchers. Some even plagiarize in order to publish more papers. S%-L!V ,  
On the other hand, however, we should not hastily say no to the quantitative uation of scientific researchers. In fact, the number of papers is a critical index in measuring the achievement of a scholar or an academic institution. As we can see, nations with developed sciences rank among the top in SCI and SSCI publications. Quantitative uation is especially necessary in some disciplines in China where there are not sufficient experts to give an objective assessment. :,y V?E6]  
To sum up, we should not go to extremes in this matter. While we should continue to adopt the quantity of works as an index in uating scientific researchers, we should not lay as much emphasis on it as we did. Instead, more freedom and a looser environment should be provided for researchers so that they can give full play to their talent. Only in this way can we expect a boom of science in this country. C0zE<fl  
D$;mur'  
h&L+Qx