In fact, the original intention of this system is correct. Doctors with higher professional titles will have a stronger view of medical skills than ordinary doctors, and their research fields will be broader and deeper, so they should be inferior to other ordinary doctors. Professional title is a system that exists for this purpose.
However, academic papers have gradually become a tool for some doctors to raise the title of monk. In the increasingly impetuous medical field, many people don't even finish their papers in person, give them to others, and then publish them in their own names. As long as they pass the examination of papers, they can upgrade their titles as effortlessly as possible. This leads to the fact that there is no actual connection between professional titles and papers, but it is a mere formality, and even becomes a corruption phenomenon in academic papers.
What I want is whether we can improve the method of presenting new medical concepts and raise the threshold of professional title promotion on the basis of the paper. In other words, the promotion of medical titles in the future can not only rely on academic papers, but also put the relevant theories in academic papers into practice, and the titles can only be evaluated after seeing the research results. In this way, some academic papers will not be empty of theoretical words and have no practical significance and achievements. In this way, academic papers are simplified into written reports, and we look at the most tangible results, so papers will not become a stepping stone to professional titles. Or completely separate academic papers from professional title promotion and evaluate professional titles in another foolproof way.