In order to improve the scientific evaluation of papers, many universities now implement blind evaluation system, that is, papers without the author's name are sent to experts for evaluation, so that the score should be the most objective. This seems to be a strict system, very scientific and reasonable. However, it is easy for people in the industry to find "tricky": blind trial requires braille first, and braille users have supreme power, which also breeds new opportunities for corruption and "false blindness" incidents. Then, people began to think about another problem. In universities, there are degree committees, academic committees, student thesis defense committees and defense committees. Each student's thesis defense needs several experts as defense members. How can such a strict system not guarantee the quality of papers, and how can it allow papers that do not meet the requirements to pass? If there is doubt about the effectiveness of their work, what is the significance of their existence? Is it a waste of resources to set up a blind trial system besides them? We know exactly where the problem lies-that is, the professor's academic reputation has declined and his integrity has been questioned. Some people even assert that scholars or professors who say what they think and maintain their independence are "extinct".