Some people say that publishing four famous medical journals is definitely not "irrigation". Is that really the case? Take the meta-analysis familiar to many clinicians as an example. If you send a meta-analysis of n 1 to 5 points, someone will definitely say that you "irrigate", but if you send a meta-analysis of n BMJ and JAMA, no one should dare to say that you "irrigate". If it is wrong, someone will spray it.
Dagfinn Aune, a foreign researcher, has done a lot of meta-analysis on BMJ and Jama. Many people are full of envy and admiration when they see such achievements. Especially in China, this is enviable, because there are few meta-analyses about BMJ and JAMA in China. Meta-analysis can be used to publish famous journals, such as BMJ and Journal of American Medical Association, which should be informative. According to the truth, no one dares to say "irrigation". However, some people who study the methodology of evidence-based medicine look down on others and say that they are "irrigation".
Many famous journals such as BMJ and JAMA have appeared, and some people will say it is "irrigation". It can be seen that if you want to be said "watered", you can do it without sending an article. It is basically impossible not to post articles. After all, many schools require articles after graduation, and many units also use articles to evaluate professional titles. If there is no article, can I still apply for a topic?
Send a few SCI papers, some people will say "irrigation", send a few SCI papers, and some people will say "irrigation". It can be seen that no matter how many points you send SCI, you can't avoid being scolded for "irrigation". If you mind others saying "water", the best way is not to post articles.