عنوان مقاله [English]
The scientific growth in Iran has been Deceptive. Its prideful indicators along with disturbing evidence have become a paradox. There are contradictory signs of it. Iran is a country of fifty thousand scientific articles that's 50 times as much in twenty years. Its growth rate has exceeded fast developmenting countries like China, Korea, and Turkey. Nearly 1,800 magazines are often quarterly, continue to increase yearly plenty of articles to the archive of Iranian knowledge archive. Articles with several million citations. Twenty percent of Iranian scientific papers are written by an international contributing author. Iran's contribution to the human and social knowledge of the world according to the publication of articles increased from about 0.4% in 2012 to 0.7% in 2018. It is a sharp turn: Publish or Perish! But what is the result? A huge machine that has an annual financial turnover of more than 1000 billion Tomans. Its fuel is 800,000 postgraduate students plus over eighty thousand faculty members. The manufactoral model is the automatic production of student-faculty articles. The student writes and the faculty sees! Its gears are the regulations that count the papers and gives degree. Counts again and gives the academic rank of a faculty member. Again counts and determines other ranks. Again, the myth of counting, counting and still counting. Sometimes even systematic corruption breaks out in the process of producing and publishing these articles. But one thing remains unclear; what is the social impact of these articles? What helps to promote Iranian national knowledge and awareness? What contribution does it make to people's everyday life around the country and the sustainable development of this land? What national added value does it bring? Where are the humanities and social science articles In this case? There are a variety of ways to test the quality of performance. One way is to compare them with benchmark performance from the past to the present. In this article, eight generations of authentic articles in the humanities and social sciences that has been published for the past two centuries in Akhtar to Bukhara are set as benchmark performance for criticism of the current mass of official papers in journals called scientific journals. Probably at least ten types of traumatic tendencies cause a form of inertia. Reduces hope for the quality of articles in humanities and social science and the social impact of these articles: the centrality of quantity, formalism, ritualism, stateism, the centrality of supply, subsistence, officiality, behaviorism/ centrality of administrative duty, managerialism, and the problem of ivory tower.