博文
Nature如此处理读者来信
精选
|||
—为什么再发张月红的短信
9月9日Nature发表张月红的短信后，我们曾写了一个题目为《Don’t blame ancient Chinese culture for modern evils in science》的短信（Correspondence）批评Nature的做法，于9月12日发给了Nature编辑部，9月17日编辑部来函表示接受发表一个压缩的我们的短信（见附件1），9月22日我们收到了编辑部发来的校对稿，打开一看编辑修改的短信只剩下了一句话，完全篡改了我们短信的意思（见附件2）。我们当然不同意，我们经反复协商写出了我们自己的修改稿（编辑部对短信长度的要求是300-400个英文单词，我们的修改稿只有200多单词）于9月24日返回编辑部。此后近两周没有任何消息。我于10月5日发E-mail查询，10月6日编辑部来信，
“建议取消（在纸张版）发表我们的（已被他们压短而接受的）信，换之以在张月红通讯(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467153d.html)下以评论方式发表我们的长信。但在线评论（别人发表的东西）与纸张版发表（有记录于索引的东西）是大不相同的。而且，读者不必由《自然》批准就可贴在线评论（虽然贴的评论可被自然压着不显或显后再删）。同时告知在线发表张月红的短信 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467153d.html)，也即科学网所发《张月红《自然》再发通讯谈大学学报》（http://news.sciencenet.cn//htmlnews/2010/10/238722.shtm）。
这就是Nature处理读者来信的方式，以他们自己的思想取代作者的思想，如果不同意就拒发。因此我们将此过程写了一短文发表在Scientific Ethics 5(1): 6-9, 2010（http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2010V5N1A3_Nature.htm， http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2010V5N1A3_Nature.pdf），也即附件2.附件1.
9月17日Nature编辑部的接收函：
Dear Dr Cui,
Further to your submission for our Correspondence section, I am pleased to confirm that we are happy to accept a shortened version for publication. Acceptance is according to Nature's normal terms and conditions of publication (see our guide to authors at www.nature.com/nature for details).
You will shortly be receiving an edited proof from one of our production subeditors; we would be grateful if you would please read, check and return it as soon as possible.
Please note that Nature's editors may subsequently make further small changes for reasons of space or house style without further consultation with the author.
I am attaching a copyright Licence to publish form and competing financial interest form for you to sign. Please could you return these forms to this email address or fax them to +44 20 7843 4596 as soon as possible, as we cannot publish your work without it. Also, please be aware that by submitting your work to us you agree in principle to the terms of the copyright assignment form. More details about potential competing financial interests appear at http://www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/competing.html
With regards
Yours sincerely
Rosalind Cotter
Correspondence
附件2 Sxientific Ethic发表的有关Nature处理我们的短信的文章：
A Candid Presentation of Nature’s Handling of Correspondences
|
Scientific Ethics 5(1): 6-9, 2010
|
OPEN LETTER
|
|
http://im1.biz
|
|
|
© Truthfinding Cyberpress
|
HANDLING OF CORRESPONDENCES
|
Keming Cui1, Xiaowen Li2, Dehua Wang3, and Shi V. Liu4
1College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
3Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing100101, China
4 Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, Apex, NC, USA
Corresponding with ckm@pku.edu.cn
(Received 2010-10-09; revised 2010-10-11; accepted 2010-10-13; published 2010-10-13)
HIGHLIGHT
Presented here are correspondences submitted to Nature and the handling of them by Nature. It appears that Nature has a habit of overly editing correspondences to convey its own messages.
ABSTRACT
By significantly changing the original messages contained in a correspondence Nature successfully communicated an idea that plagiarisms in China is rooted in ancient Chinese culture. However, this untruthful and irresponsible conclusion has resulted in strong condemnation in Chinese communities across the world. A correspondence communicating these massive outrage was submitted to Nature and a significantly shortened version was accepted by Nature for publication upon authors’s proof-reading. However, the Nature-edited version is not only very short in length but also short in conveying the main points of the authors. Therefore, a revised version was sent back to Nature by the authors. This revised version also took into considerations of Nature’s later published Editorial and News article on the issue. However, Nature withdrew its original acceptance and decided not publishing this correspondence at all.
KEY WORDS
Correspondence, Editing, Handling, Plagiarism, Culture, Root, Rejection, Author, Editor, Ethics
1. Original submission of a correspondence
1A. The cover letter
September 12, 2010
Dear Nature editors,
We are submitting and wish a rapid publication of our Correspondence entitled “Don’t blame ancient Chinese culture for modern evils in science” to address a serious issue caused by the publication of Correspondence “Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized”.
Nature’s depiction of a wide occurance of “Chinese plagiarism” has generated a huge outrage among Chinese scientists as evidenced by rapid apperance of many blog articles in a major science network in China (http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/). These blog articles have condemed Nature’s Correspondence for essentially contributing ancient Chinese culture for the occurance of a modern evil in science.
We admit that plagiarism is now more and more common in China, as it does so also in western countries. However, the root cause for this problem is not the ancient Chinese culture. If ancient Chinese culture is a root cause for this problem, why did it not widely exist in ancient China? If Chinese culture is a major cause for this problem, why does it not severely exist in all Chinese communities?
In addition, copying with respect (by giving citation and reference) is not a plagiarism. Thus stating “In ancient China, for example, students were typically encouraged to copy the words of their masters” for arguing a contribution of ancient Chinese culture to the spread of a modern evil in science is very inappropraite. Copying for learning knowledge is different from plagiarizing for slealing credit!
Therefore we strongly urge Nature to rapidly publish our Correspondence to present a balanced view or at least to show some different opinions on this serious matter.
Scincerely yours,
Keming Cui, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China, ckm@pku.edu.cn
Xiaowen Li, Department of Geography，Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875,, lix@bnu.edu.cn
Dehua Wang, Editor-in-Chife of Acta Theriologica Sinica, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China,wangdh@ioz.ac.cn
Shi V. Liu, Editor-in-Chief, Logical Biology, Director of Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, Apex, NC 27502, USA, SVL8EPA@gmail.com
1B. The correspondence
Don’t blame ancient Chinese culture for modern evils in science
We are surprised that Nature published a Correspondence titled “Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized” (Nature 467, 153; 2010). It reflects author’s poor understanding of plagiarism and editor’s inappropriate handling of a very sensitive matter and thus has caused an outrage among Chinese scientists.
First of all, a journal run by a university in China may not represent (all) Chinese journal(s) and thus the title of the Correspondence is misleading the world if not insulting (all) Chinese.
Secondly, the so-called plagiarized submissions may not necessarily be “unoriginal” as the detection of “plagiarism” was based on comparing “identical or paraphrased chunks of text”, the normal function and capability of CrossCheck (Nature 466, 167; 2010). Nature’s editors should be fully aware of a critical distinction between copying text and stealing content as its Editorial had even emphasized a need of human judgment for the “plagiarism” detection by CrossCheck (Nature 466, 159; 2010).
Unfortunately, Nature allowed this unsubstantiated claim of detecting “unoriginal material in a staggering 31% of papers submitted” published with a truly staggering title. But this 31% “plagiarism” found by this particular Chinese journal is not much more “staggering” than the “plagiarism” found by other journals (Nature 466, 167; 2010).
Interestingly this Chinese journal is an INTERNATIONAL journal, as pointed out by an online comment posted under the Correspondence. Thus, without a detailed analysis on the originality and the authorship of the submissions, how could the author reach a conclusion that seemed at blaming only Chinese for submitting “plagiarized” papers with “unoriginal materials”? We DEMAND the author to provide us the related raw material for an independent analysis.
Even if all the alleged cases of Chinese plagiarism were true, we still cannot believe this particular university-run journal can represent typical Chinese journals. We could not buy the argument that Chinese scientists are more likely to commit plagiarism than other scientists.
It is true that some severe problems including escalated lagiarism exists in modern China. However, all of these modern evils are unlikely results of ancient Chinese culture. As Chinese we have been told generation by generation that honesty is an essential character for a good human being. We also have a long history of respecting others’ work by faithfully reproducing them, including verbatim copying other’s statement with citation and reference. But such respectful treatments of prior arts should not be miss-identified as “plagiarism”. Plagiarism is “substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work” (http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/plagiarism.shtml). It is a behavior driven by greedy for stealing credit and thus gaining undeserved benefits including financial benefits. Such an evil behavior in science happens also and may be more often in societies cheerishing capitalism.
So please don’t blame ancient Chinese culture for some modern evils introduced into China AFTER its door is open. We need to fix these modern evils by promoting our good ancient culture.
Keming Cui, College of Life Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China, ckm@pku.edu.cn
Xiaowen Li, Department of Geography，Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China, lix@bnu.edu.cn
Dehua Wang, Editor-in-Chife of Acta Theriologica Sinica, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China,wangdh@ioz.ac.cn
Shi V. Liu, Editor-in-Chief, Logical Biology, Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, Apex, NC 27502, USA, SVL8EPA@gmail.com
2. Nature’s edited version ready for publication upon author approval
(Received September 22, 2010)
2A. The notice
Proofs of your Nature Correspondence
Dear Keming Cui,
Please find attached a PDF proof of your Correspondence, which we plan to publish in a forthcoming issue of Nature. Please check the text to ensure there are no errors, and send any changes in an e-mail or by annotating the PDF.
Please note that for space reasons, only one author e-mail address can be included.
Your letter may appear in any issue from next week onwards, so please return any changes as soon as possible.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best wishes,
XXX
2b. The proof
Plagiarism not rooted in culture
Don’t blame ancient Chinese culture for modern evils in science (Nature 467, 153: 2010).
Plagiarism is becoming more common in China, as it is elsewhere. But this problem cannot be rooted in Chinese culture, otherwise it would have existed widely in ancient China and still be evident across Chinese communities today.
Copying out of respect in order to learn, with appropriate citation, is not the same as plagiarism, which is copying to steal credit.
Keming Cui Peking University, China, ckm@pku.edu.cn
Xiaowen Li Beijing Normal University, China
Dehua Wang Chinese Academy of Science, China
Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, USA
3. Author’s revision retuned to Nature on September 24, 2010
3A. The cover letter
Dear XXX,
Nature Editor,
We really appreciate your effort in editing our Correspondence. However, we are worried that some of our ideas might have been omitted or changed in your severely shortened version.
As you might have already learnt that many people in China are unsatisfied with the editing of Ms. Zhang’s Correspondence because it actually caused some misunderstanding or misrepresentation. We are afraid that we will suffer from the same treatment by our Chinese colleagues as Ms. Zhang is facing now for some statements that are not quite close to her intentions.
In addition, we feel that some additions should be added to our Correspondences to cover the later published Nature Editorial and News related to our topic. As a matter of fact, we believe that our discussion on plagiarism should move beyond identifying its origin(s) to reaching some solutions.
Therefore, after extensive discussion and many internal debates, we have come up with this concise but more meaningful version.
We wish that you would consider our effort as a very constructive approach to this world-wide problem in science. Of course, we always welcome your further improvement, as long as our views are accurately re-presented.
Sincerely yours,
Keming Cui Peking University, China, ckm@pku.edu.cn
Xiaowen Li Beijing Normal University, China
Dehua Wang Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, USA
PS
The new version of Correspondence (total words in text: 264)
3B. The revized correspondence
Opinions on origin and solution for plagiarism
In some recent publications (Nature 467, 153, 252, and 261, 2010) ancient Chinese culture has been blamed for the increasingly spreading of plagiarism in the mainland of China. This understanding may not be correct and may even prevent the discovery of a right solution for the problem.
In fact plagiarism was derived from a Latin word plagiarius and introduced into English around 1615–25 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism). It refers to “wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work”. This stealing without respect is totally different from coping with respect, which is a way of learning and promoting others’ work..
To combat plagiarism, we need to find a way to efficiently and reliably identify true plagiarism and establish a mechanism to effectively and powerfully deter plagiarists. CrossCheck is helpful in detecting similarity but human intelligence is needed for differentiating respectful copying and credit-robbing plagiarism.
Publishing directly in English may not form a solution for plagiarism. Opening every publication for unrestricted scientific criticism may intimidate temptation for making false claims including plagiarism. However, to achieve that, some publishers need to change their culture of allowing only very limited space for scientific criticism and exposing unethical plagiarism just occasionally after misconduct is established.
4. Inquiry on the status of revised correspondence sent on Oct. 5, 2010
Dear XXX, Nature Editor:
On September 24, 2010 I sent you a revised version of our Correspondence that Nature intended to publish.
It has been two weeks since my submission of the revision to you but so far I have not heard anything on it.
Could you please check its status and let me know?
Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Keming Cui Peking University, China, ckm@pku.edu.cn
5. Nature’s Reply to inquiry received on Oct. 6, 2010
Dear Keming Cui,
Apologies for the delay in replying. Thank you for your earlier message suggesting that we publish an expanded version of your letter. However, we accepted that letter because we considered it was a fair reply to a point made in Helen Zhang's Correspondence.
The topic of plagiarism has already been covered extensively in this journal, so I am afraid that we would not be willing to publish your longer revised letter.
We appreciate your point, however, that your original letter might provoke further adverse comment. We suggest therefore that we withdraw that letter and that instead you post your extended letter as an online comment to Helen Zhang's Correspondence (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7312/full/467153d.html).
We hope this solution is satisfactory.
Kind regards,
XXX
中国期刊投稿31%剽窃？
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-84542-373273.html
上一篇：中国科协是谁的家？
下一篇：肖案判了、《自然》论了、刘实哑了？
