中國科研的不發表就滅亡（轉載）

animalchem

轉載如下：
中國科研的不發表就滅亡
　　有人說，湊高影響期刊論文篇數的壓力很可能會助長學術不端。

　　英國《自然》463, 142-143 (2010)
　　記者：Jane Qiu
　　翻譯：clark

　　在中國一系列引人注目的學術造假案件中，最近的一起更凸顯了一個過度強
調發表的學術評價體系的問題，批評人士這樣說道。上個月，英國的《結晶學報
（E）》的編輯一次性撤消了70篇已經發表的晶體結構——編輯們斷言這些晶體
結構是江西省井岡山大學的研究人員編造出來的。而且以后可能還會有更多的撤
消。

　　對于那些能吸引眼球的發表，中國大學經常給與現金獎勵，住房優惠和其他
外快；而發表的壓力也是與日俱增。比如，武漢大學的一項最新研究估計，諸如
找槍手炮制論文等買賣論文與經營非法學術期刊活動僅在2009年市值已達十億，
五倍于2007年的數字。在其他的研究中，來自主要大學和研究機構的被調查研究
人員有三分之一承認有過剽竊、篡改、編造數據的行為。

　　“學術不端已經到了令人不安的程度，”安阿堡的密西根大學研究倫理與誠
信項目的負責人Nicholas Steneck說：“這集中體現了中國在爭取迅速地提高研
究地位，試圖成為科學界世界級選手的過程中所面臨的挑戰。而在中國這樣一個
巨大的研究體系當中，研究質量自然是良莠不齊的……”

　　作為對結晶學論文被撤消的回應，兩周前井岡山大學開除了論文的兩位通訊
作者—鐘華和劉濤。現在還不清楚他們的共同作者，其中包括來自中國其他研究
機構的研究人員，是否會被調查。

　　這份期刊的編輯說，在測試一款用來標識潛在錯誤和罕見化學結構（比如，
原子間不正常的距離）的軟件時，這些論文露出了馬腳。這款軟件確認了大量在
化學上根本說不過去的晶體結構。在進一步的核實表明，編輯說，論文的作者僅
僅置換了現存化合物已知結構中一兩個原子的位置，就把它們作為新的結構提交
了。現在無法聯絡到鐘華和劉濤來聽取他們的申訴。

　　期刊的編輯們正在檢查其他已經發表的晶體結構的真實性，包括所有來自井
岡山大學的投稿。

　　在這份期刊過去五年所發表的所有二十萬余種晶體結構中，一半來自中國。
E卷的三名編輯之一，來自英國阿伯丁大學的化學家William Harrison不愿意討
論正在進行當中的調查，但他說由一個研究團隊產生出大量晶體結構并不一定有
問題，因為衍射儀一天很容易就可以收集幾個數據集。“就投到E卷的論文來說，
從中國來的大部分都是測定正確的結構，他們對科學做出了有價值的貢獻”，他
又說道。

　　但是，武漢大學的研究表明學術不端行為在很多領域都廣泛傳播。計算機專
家沈陽所領導的小組運用網站分析和實地調查確定了一大批非法出版活動。其中
包括槍手代寫的文章和憑空捏造的論文，通過賄賂逃避評審以及干脆偽造合法出
版的的中國期刊和國際期刊。

　　研究人員分析了干這些非法營生的最熱門的800家網站——他們的點擊量一
天就能累積到二十一萬次，發現每筆交易通常是六百到一千兩百元人民幣。沈陽
說，其中四分之三的需求來自大學和研究機構，“整個出版過程就是一個巨大的
產業鏈”。

　　出于對這種趨勢的擔心，中國科技部委托進行了一項針對研究人員的調查。
雖然調查結果尚未公開，但有些來源對《自然》透露：超過6000名遍及六家頂級
研究機構的被調查者當中大約三分之一的人承認有過剽竊、篡改和編造行為。參
與這項調查的清華大學科技與社會研究所所長曾國平說，許多人將這些不端行為
的首要原因歸結為急功近利的文化。

　　第二個經常被提及的原因是，在中國學術活動受到官僚的干涉。大多數學術
評估，從人員聘用、職稱晉升到基金分配，都是由官僚完成的，而他們都不是相
關領域的專家，方是民（方舟子）這樣解釋。方是民是一位曾在美國接受學術訓
練的生化專家，現在開辦一個名為“新語絲”的網站，專門揭露中國的學術不端
行為。“由于官僚把持，數論文的數目，而不是評價研究的質量，成了評估的常
態，”方是民如是說。

　　曾國平在清華大學的同事曹南燕，由北京市政府委托也開展了一項相似的調
查，調查了來自10所大學和研究機構的2000名研究人員。結果也發現在答復問卷
的人中有三分之一承認有過違規的學術不端行為。

　　在北京大學生命學院院長饒毅這樣的批評者看來，缺乏對造假者嚴厲的制裁
措施，即使在引人矚目的案件當中也付之闕如，是學術欺詐猖獗的原因之一。上
海交通大學的一位前院長陳進曾被指控謊稱制造出一系列的數字信號處理芯片，
但除了被解聘以外沒有任何其他后果。同時，卷入這件丑聞中的其他人員也是毫
發未損依然如故。許多研究人員對這一事實進行了批評。

　　饒毅說：“這樣令人側目的丑聞都沒有得到應有的處理，那就是發出了一個
非常錯誤的信號。”

Published online 12 January 2010 | Nature  463, 142-143 (2010) |
doi:10.1038/463142a


原文如下：
Publish or perish in China

The pressure to rack up publications in high-impact journals could
encourage misconduct, some say.

Jane Qiu

The latest in a string of high-profile academic fraud cases in China
underscores the problems of an academic-evaluation system that places
disproportionate emphasis on publications, critics say. Editors at the
UK-based journal Acta Crystallographica Section E last month retracted
70 published crystal structures that they allege are fabrications by
researchers at Jinggangshan University in Jiangxi province. Further
retractions, the editors say, are likely.

Chinese universities often award cash prizes, housing benefits or
other perks on the basis of high-profile publications, and the
pressure to publish seems to be growing. A new study from Wuhan
University, for instance, estimates that the market for dubious
science-publishing activities, such as ghostwriting papers on
nonexistent research, was of the order of 1 billion renminbi (US$150
million) in 2009 — five times the amount in 2007. In other studies,
one in three researchers surveyed at major universities and research
institutions admitted to committing plagiarism, falsification or
fabrication of data.

"The extent of the misconduct is disturbing," says Nicholas Steneck,
director of the Research Ethics and Integrity Program at the
University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "It highlights the challenges
China faces as it struggles to rapidly improve the research capacity
of a very large system — with significant variations in quality — to
be a world-class player in science."

Two weeks ago, reacting to the retractions of the crystallography
papers, Jinggangshang University fired the correspondent authors,
Zhong Hua and Liu Tao. It is unclear whether their co-authors, who
include researchers from other institutions in China, will also be
investigated.

The journal's editors say that the discrepancies came to light during
tests of software designed to flag possible errors and unusual
chemical features, such as abnormal distances between atoms. The
software identified a large number of crystal structures that didn't
make sense chemically; further checking, the editors say, suggests
that the authors simply changed one or more atoms of an existing
compound of known structure, then presented that structure as new.
Zhong and Liu could not be reached for comment.

Editors at the journal are now checking the authenticity of other
published crystal structures, including all submissions from
Jinggangshan University.

Half of the 200,000-odd crystal structures published by the journal
during the past five years have come from China. William Harrison, a
chemist at the University of Aberdeen, UK, who is one of three section
editors for the journal, would not discuss the ongoing investigation
but says that the generation of large numbers of structures by one
group would not necessarily raise questions, because diffractometers
can easily collect a couple of data sets a day. "In terms of papers
submitted to Acta E, the vast majority coming from China are correctly
determined structures, and they make a valuable contribution to
science," he says.

Nevertheless, the Wuhan University study suggests that misconduct
could be widespread in many fields. The team, led by computer
scientist Shen Yang, used website analyses and onsite investigations
to identify a wide range of dubious publishing activities. These
include ghostwriting theses and academic papers on fictional research,
bypassing peer-review for payment, and forging copies of legitimate
Chinese or international journals.

The researchers analysed the most popular 800 websites involved in
such activities — which together rack up 210,000 hits a day — and
found that the cost of each transaction is typically 600–12,000
renminbi. Three-quarters of the demand comes from universities and
institutions, says Shen. "There is a massive production chain for the
entire publishing process," he says.

Concerned by such trends, China's science ministry commissioned a
survey of researchers, the results of which remain under wraps. However,
several sources revealed to Nature that roughly one-third of more than
6,000 surveyed across six top institutions admitted to plagiarism,
falsification or fabrication. Many blamed the culture of jigong jinli
— seeking quick success and short-term gain — as the top reason for
such practices, says Zeng Guopin, director of the Institute of Science
Technology and Society at Tsinghua University in Beijing who was
involved in running the survey.

The second most-cited cause is bureaucratic interference in academic
activities in China. Most academic evaluation — from staff employment
and job promotion to funding allocation — is carried out by
bureaucrats who are not experts in the field in question, says Fang
Shimin, a US-trained biochemist who runs a website called 'New
Threads' that exposes research misconduct in China. "When that happens,
counting the number of publications, rather than assessing the quality
of research, becomes the norm of evaluation," he says.

Cao Nanyan, a colleague of Zeng's at Tsinghua, conducted a similar
survey commissioned by the Beijing municipality, which surveyed 2,000
researchers from 10 universities and research institutions. It, too,
found that roughly one-third of respondents admitted to illegitimate
practices.

To critics such as Rao Yi, dean of the life-science school at Peking
University in Beijing, the lack of severe sanctions for fraudsters,
even in high-profile cases, also contributes to rampant academic fraud.
Many researchers criticize the fact that Chen Jin, a former researcher
at Shanghai Jiao Tong University who is accused of falsely claiming to
have developed a series of digital signal-processing chips, was fired
with no other repercussions. Meanwhile, others involved in the scandal
have gone unpunished.

"You send out a very wrong signal when such high-profile cases are not
dealt with properly," says Rao.

sunmanji

中國學者應引以為戒！

sjhy620926

學術不端非常厲害，我的某篇優秀論文就被人抄去申報職稱了。

jiakang

厲害,學術是要潛下心來,踏實創新的.........

tom147145111

呵呵
啥話也不想講
現在社會就這樣

search666

昨天看到中央電視臺經濟頻道《中國腳步》節目，一頂中國制造的帽子在國外賣到十幾美元，而中國企業出口價格僅一美元，我們付出了大部分的勞動卻得到極其微薄的回報，別人吃肉我們只有喝點湯的份！一部汽車的發動機、轉向、制動和電路等核心系統技術我們國產品牌與國外品牌的差距不可想象，我們只不過是一個中國制造的世界加工廠，根本沒有核心技術，所以也就沒有競爭力。
    有差距并不怕，關鍵是要迎頭趕上，政府早已意識到這一問題，早在鄧小平時期就提出了‘科技是第一生產力’的偉大方針，近年政府也一直在強調提高自主創新能力，提高核心競爭力，并投入大量的資金、人力物力，國家重視并投入關鍵是這些資源有沒有用到該用的地方？我們的大學、科研機構是不是在真正的踏踏實實的搞這些工作？有多少人真正在搞？
    提高核心競爭力不是一朝一夕就能夠達到的目標，需要一代人甚至是幾代人的默默付出，連續空缺兩年的自然科學獎一等獎今年終于有了得主，獲獎項目為由中科院植物研究所錢崇澍、崔鴻賓等人完成的“《中國植物志》的編研”，過去十年中，該獎項累積空缺七次。《中國植物志》的編纂歷時45年，由幾代人完成的巨作，包含有5000多萬字，收入31000多種植物，是目前世界上最大、最完整的一份植物志。遺憾的是，獲獎時，錢崇澍、崔鴻賓早已過世。
    真正的成果只有具備這樣的淡泊名利，專心科研的精神才能做出來的，現在像這樣的科研工作者太少了，少的都可以申請國家級保護了！

天牛行空

學術造假就如假冒商品一樣，要嚴厲打擊！！！

tanhao121811

畢竟，科研不是那么容易就出來的~

養殖小干事

現在就這個氛圍，難 啊

panjianwen1982

引以為戒呀