These two days, the report of "a post-90s high-value doctoral director in Huazhong University of science and technology" was popular. The party concerned was Hu Yue, an associate professor and doctoral supervisor of Wuhan photoelectric National Research Center. It is mentioned in the report that she has published academic achievements since she was an undergraduate. She was promoted to associate professor of Huazhong University of science and technology in 2018 and doctoral director in 2019. Over the past five years, Hu Yue has published more than 60 SCI papers, including 21 papers by the first author and corresponding author. The report also mentioned that she was often mistaken for a "senior sister" because of her "youthful and lively face". The report subsequently sparked controversy on the Internet. Some publicity reports of Hu Yue were scanned word by word, including the college entrance examination results, the gold content of academic achievements and the ultra-high output of 60 SCI in five years. People even began to speculate about her family background and suspected that she had "expert guidance". Objectively speaking, 60 SCI papers published in five years are indeed very prominent, but does this necessarily constitute a problem? Of course not. Academic achievements, never only look at the true and false, do not look at the quantity. The public can only make external conjectures and criticism by questioning scholars with "abnormal quantity", which may not be in the academic category. Of course, there will be geniuses in academia. There is no need to be surprised by those extraordinary people. If only "should be so" is used to frame scholars, I'm afraid the academic community will be boring. If there are those shining academic stars, of course, they should be given enough space, and their amazing achievements should also be treated normally. It should also be emphasized that the academic life of scholars is very long, especially with a large number of academic information on the Internet, the span and breadth of a scholar's examination have also been expanded. Therefore, whether Hu Yue's scientific research achievements are excellent or not may be left to the professional judgment of the academic community. If there is a problem, follow the rules. Public opinion should respect the professional threshold, and academic peer review will naturally play a screening role in the survival of the fittest. This "pickiness" from academic and professional will accompany a scholar's life. A scholar from a professional field has been examined in every way in the public view. This event itself is also worth thinking about. In fact, the scholar entered the field of public opinion by "reducing the dimension" of academic discourse into popular discourse, and then reached the level of "comment" by ordinary readers. For example, in the publicity, what is prominent is her youth, beauty and promising future. She writes well and produces high-yield papers. As for the professional academic evaluation, she is vague, and it is difficult for readers to understand the value of the paper. Then there is a paradox. The problems criticized by the academic circles, such as only papers, only professional titles and only academic qualifications, have been taken out in the publicity of scholars, and the appearance that has nothing to do with academia has also been emphasized. There is no other reason, but it is easy to be understood by the public, and it is also easy to have topics and traffic. Because of this, these scholars are inevitably examined by the public from a "layman perspective". Most of the time, this kind of judgment may not be professional, and it does not matter to a scholar's scientific research identification, but it may lead to all kinds of unexpected disputes, cause pressure to the parties, and interfere with the professional academic evaluation. In recent years, many colleges and universities have almost launched a batch of young academic stars with good appearance and temperament. Academic worship, youth worship and beauty worship are mixed together. Whenever these characters appear, they almost inevitably lead to a wave of screen brushing in the field of public opinion. Some people envy them, others feel anxious about their peers. Of course, some people dig their academic background and try to disenchantment them. The breaking of academic circles is certainly beneficial and helps to enrich the public's understanding of scientific research. However, it should also be understood that there is a threshold for scholarship after all. The exploration in the hall may not be suitable for being placed on the choppboard in the hall. The most critical academic evaluation must come from the academic circle itself and the recognition of academic colleagues. Academic has its own coordinate system, and it is easy to produce visual deformation when entering other dimensions. What kind of perspective should society use to introduce and understand people in academic circles? These events are enough to provide some thinking. (Xinhua News Agency)