看了一下凤凰网的报道，只有中文，却没有英文原文。应该是国内记者英文程度不够。NBT应该只是重复了其固有的政策。下面我翻译部分关键内容。

http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/corrections.html

Our policy is to consider refutations (readers' criticisms) of primary research papers, and to publish them (in concise form) if and only if the author provides compelling evidence that a major claim of the original paper was incorrect. Refutations are peer-reviewed, and where possible they are sent to the same referees who reviewed the original paper. A copy is usually also sent to the corresponding author of the original paper for signed comments. Refutations are typically published in the Communications Arising section of Nature (which is online-only) or the Correspondence section of other Nature journals, sometimes with a brief response from the original authors. Some submitted refutations are eventually published as retractions by the paper's authors.

上面的洋文是说：对于原始研究论文的反驳，NATURE的政策是，只有当反驳者提供原论文的主要声称的结果错误的强烈证据时，我们才会考虑并以简略形式发表。反驳文将进行同行审核，可能的话会发给原论文的审核者。原论文的通讯作者也会收到反驳，并有机会对反驳做出评论。反驳+作者的评论发表在网上或者刊物的通信栏目。有些递交的反驳最终会作为论文作者的撤稿声明发表。

以韩春雨的NgAgo 论文为例，如果《自然》杂志认为国内13名教授的反对值得考虑，首先会把反对意见尽可能交给韩春雨论文的原审稿人审阅，并且发给韩春雨给韩春雨一个回应的机会。

如果韩春雨还没有收到《自然》转发的反对意见，也就说明《自然》认为反对者还没有提出有效的反对证据。

所以，记者的第一步应该是去问问韩春雨，有没有收到这些反对的证据文件，如果没有，请继续努力。

科学证伪的程序是科学的，靠的是硬道理，反驳原创论文得有实实在在、经得起推敲的证据。

不是网上吵吵闹闹。

补充：

有读者提到NBT的这段话

【Some submitted criticisms are so significant that they lead the authors or editors (with the assistance of peer reviewers) to conclude that the fundamental conclusions of the paper are invalid. In these cases a paper would be retracted.】

与前面我文中提到的洋文一样，这不过是NATURE一般政策的重复，而非针对韩春雨的 NGAGO。

相关专题：韩春雨事件
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自岳东晓科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-684007-1011380.html

上一篇：水中球的负引力与质量重整
下一篇：本博关于匿名挑衅者的声明