马上评丨“如何科学躲鸟粪”，是好论文吗？ Immediate Review | "How to Scientifically Avoid Bird Droppings," Is It a Good Paper?

澎湃特约评论员 夏研 Pengpai Special Commentator Xia Yan

来源：澎湃新闻 Source: The Paper

在宁波大学有一条被学生们称为“天使路”的小径，路旁高大茂盛的樟树上栖息着白鹭，路人走过时，不经意间就会遭到鸟粪的“光顾”。为了科学地避开这些不请自来的“冰淇淋”，宁大物理学院2021级物理学专业的本科生展开了研究，撰写了论文《论一种白鹭排泄物分布的研究方法》。
At Ningbo University, there is a path called "Angel Road" by the students. Egrets perch on the tall and lush camphor trees along the road, and passersby often get hit by bird droppings unexpectedly. To scientifically avoid these unwelcome "ice creams," undergraduates from the 2021 Physics program at Ningbo University's School of Physics conducted research and wrote a paper titled "On a Method for Studying the Distribution of Egret Excrement."

这篇论文通过收集数据、分析模式，并考虑白鹭的栖息习性和活动规律，使用种种数学公式，最后得出了结论——只要在55.4秒内通过“天使路”，就可以免受攻击。一本正经地研究一个不那么正经的话题，让这篇论文迅速出圈，登上了热搜。
This paper collected data, analyzed patterns, and considered the egrets' habitat habits and activity patterns, using various mathematical formulas. It concluded that as long as one passes through "Angel Road" within 55.4 seconds, they can avoid being attacked. The serious study of a not-so-serious topic quickly gained attention and trended on social media.

这样的论文当然是有新意的：善于从身边的小事中发现问题，颇有“百姓日用即道”的哲学意味；而且，研究“如何躲避鸟粪”这种角度清奇的话题，也有着特别的意义。毕竟这种小事大概率不会成为大部头著作的主题，学生去钻研这种学术“缝隙”，对发散思维也有好处。
Such a paper is certainly novel: it is adept at discovering problems from everyday life, embodying the philosophy of "the way is in the daily use of the people." Moreover, researching a quirky topic like "how to avoid bird droppings" has special significance. After all, such trivial matters are unlikely to become the subject of major works, and students delving into these academic "niches" can benefit their divergent thinking.

事实上，近些年有不少别出心裁的论文出圈，主题和研究领域五花八门。有的研究“研究生为什么要换导师”，有的研究“八角茴香对卤鸡肉的影响”，有的研究“‘云吸猫’背后的社会心理”，还有的研究“情趣内衣中的‘情感表达研究’”……舆论也津津乐道于去捕捉这种有话题性的论文，将之放到大众阅读的层次点评一番。
In fact, in recent years, many unconventional papers have gained attention, covering a wide range of topics and research fields. Some study "why graduate students change advisors," some explore "the impact of star anise on braised chicken," some investigate "the social psychology behind 'cloud cat petting'," and others research "emotional expression in lingerie." The public enjoys capturing these topical papers and discussing them at a popular level.

但这样的论文是不是好论文？换句话说，好到什么程度？这个问题却难以一概而论。论文的评价体系是有一定门槛的，舆论对某些趣味论文的热捧，未必能和严肃的专业评判等价。
But are such papers good papers? In other words, how good are they? This question is difficult to answer definitively. The evaluation system for papers has certain thresholds, and the public's enthusiasm for some interesting papers may not equate to serious professional judgment.

比如对于宁波大学学生研究如何科学躲鸟粪，网上不乏溢美之词，有人说这才是“真才实学”，有人说这“展现了当代大学生的创造力”云云。但如果仔细看论文内容，就能发现论文整体的结构并不复杂，虽然布满公式，但更像是一个大学生的“学术练习”。客观来说，这篇论文的话题度与专业学术深度，未见得是能够匹配的。
For example, regarding the Ningbo University students' research on how to scientifically avoid bird droppings, there is no shortage of praise online. Some say this is "true talent and learning," and others say it "demonstrates the creativity of contemporary college students." However, if you look closely at the content of the paper, you will find that its overall structure is not complex. Although it is filled with formulas, it is more like an "academic exercise" for undergraduates. Objectively speaking, the topic's popularity and the paper's academic depth may not be well-matched.

这并不是苛责学生，其实从行文本身来看，作者的心态也没有那么“正式”：在致谢里说这是“小短文”，能令读者“莞尔一笑”便深感荣幸。这本质是一篇专业领域的“游戏笔墨”，做陈义太高的夸奖，未免有点失真。
This is not to criticize the students harshly. In fact, from the text itself, the authors' mindset is not that "formal": in the acknowledgments, they call it a "short essay" and feel honored if it makes readers "smile." Essentially, this is a "playful writing" in a professional field, and overly high praise may be somewhat unrealistic.

不过，一种舆论现象或许更值得人们思考，即舆论往往会从大众阅读的视角，将一些学术作品捧到极高的位置——比如登上热搜头几名的位置。这背后的原因或许只是有趣，甚至只是因为自己看得懂题目。假设一篇论文研究粒子对撞、高温超导，上热搜的概率大概就会急剧降低，因为它的阅读理解门槛过高。
However, a phenomenon in public opinion may be more worth considering: public opinion often elevates some academic works to a high position from the perspective of popular reading—such as trending at the top of social media. The reason behind this may simply be that it is interesting, or even just because the title is understandable. If a paper studies particle collisions or high-temperature superconductivity, its chances of trending would likely drop sharply due to its high reading comprehension threshold.

但要承认，这种舆论评价和真正的学术评价相距甚远，甚至可能是南辕北辙的。舆论觉得“好玩”就足够，但对于学术来说，却要讲究“有用”“有创新性”。在这种舆论对论文的围观中，人们也应当保持清醒，不要产生误解，既不要觉得这种通俗易懂的选题才是“脚踏实地的学术”，对之赞美过誉；也不要因为其主题不够“风雅”，就嗤之以鼻。这些评价都过于简单了。
But it must be acknowledged that this kind of public opinion evaluation is far from true academic evaluation, and may even be diametrically opposed. Public opinion finds "fun" sufficient, but for academia, it requires "usefulness" and "innovation." In this public scrutiny of papers, people should remain clear-headed and not misunderstand. Neither should they think that such easy-to-understand topics are "down-to-earth academia" and overpraise them, nor should they sneer at them for not being "elegant" enough. These evaluations are too simplistic.

无论如何，学术评价和“我来点评两句”是有差别的，论文的质地还是应当放到专业的评价体系内被审视。至于舆论围观论文，这无可厚非，但也没必要太过当真。人们围观吃瓜，本质是看个热闹，远非一锤定音式的价值认定。对此，我们应有清醒理性的认识。
In any case, academic evaluation and "let me comment a bit" are different. The quality of a paper should be examined within a professional evaluation system. As for public scrutiny of papers, it is understandable but should not be taken too seriously. People watching for fun are essentially looking for entertainment, far from making definitive value judgments. We should have a clear and rational understanding of this.

图片编辑：乐浴峰 Image Editor: Le Yufeng

校对：张亮亮 Proofreader: Zhang Liangliang