关于剽窃的认定并不拘囿于文字的模仿,数据的改头换面.如若不引用直接相关的重要文献而导致文章的新颖性高于实际情况，是否构成客观事实的剽窃？

今天我介绍一个著名出版社，两个著名大学之间的过招,至今还未有定论.

事件双方：美国PU大学 vs 英国CA大学，都是著名大学

事件背景：英国CA大学一课题组最近在美国化学会ACS出版的期刊发表了一篇论文（还未正式出版，只是在线online），用已经发表的论文合成方法及该论文报道的化合物用于新领域的研究，问题的关键是没有引用该论文，造成读者以为是新合成的化合物和新领域研究。（化合物是否新颖可以通过ACS的著名检索系统Scifinder查找，很强大，是化学工作者必备技能）

因为英国CA大学原论文中声称“Herein, we present the design, synthesis, and biophysical and primary biological evaluation of XXX as a new class of XXX stabilizing
ligands.”确实造成读者以为是新合成的化合物和新领域研究。

美国PU大学发信询问作者：“.....when an author claims the design and synthesis of compounds that already have been designed and synthesized by others by the same methods and reported in the chemical literature, and the author does not cite the prior work, does that constitute plagiarism? "不引用是否构成剽窃？

ACS编辑表态：“。。。I appreciate you pointing this out to me.

I did a quick review of the submission history and it won't surprise you to
know that none of the reviewers noticed the similarities of this manuscript
with your prior publication.  I'll discuss this matter with my Associate
Editors and with the ACS Publications staff to see what options are
available to us.  I'll let you know about our decision once we've had the
opportunity to do a thorough assessment.  If you do receive a response from
Dr. XXX（CA通讯作者）, I'd appreciate you forwarding it to me.“确实审稿人和编辑都没有发现该论文和此前你的论文的相似性。我们商量一下看应该怎么做。希望看到作者意见。

英国CA大学回复：“。。。 It was certainly not our intention to claim
novelty of design or synthesis of the compounds per se.  I can see your
point that the wording you have referred to could imply that we were.”我无意声称化合物的新颖性，我能明白该论文措辞确实会造成错觉。

但是作者坚持该方法是常规方法，“。。。was a sufficiently
standard transformation, that it was carried out by an experienced
chemist in my group, without the knowledge that your group had
previously carried out (and published) the same transformation.”

但是承认忽视了引用“。。。 It was an oversight on our part that we had not read or cited your two papers ”

道歉，改进措施引用你的论文“。。。I offer my sincere apologies for this oversight and will contact the handling editor [Dr XXX] with a view to publishing a correction to ensure you and your group are properly accredited with this  work.”

事至如此，有几个思考：

1) 如果作者一开始就在论文中表明这是旧方法旧化合物，还会被ACS录用么？

2）这是否构成剽窃？或者更准确的说，是客观事实上的剽窃？

3）目前两方意见已经表明，期刊编辑会拒绝录用还是修改后继续发表？

这件事情给大家带来了思考不仅如此，不管是不小心还是故意，发表论文时候文献要做到家，不然就是很麻烦的一件事情。

目前科学网上大家在争论用非母语模仿抄写论文是否构成剽窃？我有个例子，我在给爱是维尔出版社审稿的时候发现一个印度人抄了韩国人的此前已发表论文的整整一段，竟然附带其参考文献都未改变。我给编辑指出了这点，因为我觉得作者这么做不太厚道。大家模仿最好也态度积极点，让人感觉你厚道。

目前国内除赤裸裸的这种低级抄袭之外，这种本博文出现的情况也值得注意。坦白的说，我宁可相信英国CA大学是忽视文献工作了，但是话也说回来有时候这么故意做也是一念之差。

 

后记:CA大学在引用PU大学论文后发表了.

相关专题：中国期刊投稿31%剽窃？
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自梁建华科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-51231-363247.html

上一篇：从细节看我们的科研差什么
下一篇：做实验的情绪