博文
更shame的事自然地发生了——Nature的言论自由受限
|||
今天一大早我打开我的信箱就看到一封来自Nature编辑部的E-mail（见附件），说我的一个评论已被隐藏。仔细一看就是我在博文《Nature如此处理读者来信》和《就不当地下奶车向共同作者作个自然的道歉》中说的那篇被Nature编辑原已接受发表，后因我们不同意编辑的修改稿而拒发，但建议我们放在张月红的（第二篇）Correspondece后的评论栏中的，我们的Correspondence修改稿。只说是根据他们的条款和条件，没说具体原因。那只有我来猜一猜为什么了，从内容来说是编辑让我们贴在这个评论栏中的，就我的名字来说也没有犯Nature的忌讳，因为我还在有关的News和Editorial后留了多个评论并没有通知我被隐藏。那唯一的解释就是我们这个评论的最后一位共同作者刘实的大名犯了Nature的忌讳。那么这就告诉我们：
1. 言论自由在科学的顶尖杂志Nature上也是有限的。
2.《Nature》言论自由的条件是顺它者猖、逆它者亡。
3. 刘实看来还真是被“奶车”“压死”了。
4.《Nature》是不是开始“株连九族”？如果是，我在Nature上写评论的自由可能也快寿终正寝了。但我希望编辑大人对我这个从犯还是法外施恩，以实现我幻想再上奶车风光一番的奢望。
附：Nature来信：
|
|
Dear Keming Cui,
The following post you wrote on the Nature website has been hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions.
The following post you wrote on the Nature website has been hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions.
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.
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.
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
-Nature
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-84542-379630.html
上一篇：求真皇帝遇难，造假皇帝称雄
下一篇：Nature这样改错也是好的!
