学术打假必须依赖公权力

很好！提出了重要问题：谁有权来做“学术打假”？ (358 bytes)
Posted by: zhiyan-le
Date: August 21, 2011 02:04PM

很好！提出了重要问题：谁有权来做“学术打假”？
治理学术不端行为是带有强迫性的执法、即属于国家主权范围，是法律授权的执法机关的事情。让一个未经法律授权者甚至是私人者搞执法，本来就荒唐；而让一个身份造假、靠抄袭剽窃和造谣诽谤吃饭的无业侨民方舟子在中国社会执法，更是荒唐得不能再荒唐的事情了。所谓方舟子“十年打假”，是中共执政以来60多年里最荒唐的和最大的造假案。



这个问题确实很关键，学术打假必须依赖公权力 (648 bytes)
Posted by: 桂铭
Date: August 23, 2011 12:22AM

个人可以质疑，但是不能下判决性的结论，否则就有诽谤之嫌。媒体的表现更加重要，因为媒体可以有审判的实际能力，如果不能认识到学术打假必须依赖专业人士在公权力框架内依程序进行调查处理，而贸然以某个人的意见来大肆宣扬，就会损害涉案人的学术名誉和人身尊严，就会给谣言和诽谤以极大的破坏力。魏于全事件，如果仅在一两个论坛里讨论，不会有很大的损害力，但是人民网居然以“现行科研体制内还有多少个魏于全”来把魏于全钉上学术造假的十字架，这就成了媒体审判了，造成的影响十分恶劣。

痛恨腐败、痛恨学术造假，但是不能踢开法律和公权力闹革命，搞文革那套群众运动、大字报、掘地三尺，欲加之罪何患无辞，甚至借学术打假来公报私仇。这些都是侵犯人的尊严的违法行为，必须抵制和谴责。


桂铭说的很棒！！可说是对“方某十年打假”严重危害的精辟概括。 (132 bytes)
Posted by: zhiyan-le
Date: August 23, 2011 07:10AM

桂铭说的很棒！！可说是对“方某十年打假”严重危害的精辟概括。
方某剽窃是个人危害的事，而到处插手搞非法打假十年则是危害整个社会的事。


Root-Bernstein 教授再次怒斥方肘子 (5701 bytes)
Posted by: 圆排骨
Date: August 21, 2011 01:46PM

21 August 2011
Dear Dr. Fang,

What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do as you like. You don?t play by anyone?s rules but your own anyway?

You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90% of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50%. Well, there?s a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to blame as anyone.

In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone ? including you ? agrees that a substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against you.

You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points, all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work! This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence, which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my material?

Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can?t be the judge in your own case. Indeed, you can?t be the accuser, judge and jury in any fraud case ? and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to accrue to yourself.

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You have every right, and indeed every responsibility ? as do I! ? to point out fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right, then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright violations just because I said so. You clearly don?t want that to be the case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any other case you might bring or be accused of. I?m not sure who in China, or in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this point in time is that our controversy will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has the authority to handle such issues.