博文
Nature这样改错也是好的!
||||
在博文《更shame的事自然地发生了——Nature的言论自由受限》中谈到，11月1日收到Nature编辑部来信，说根据该杂志发评论的条款和条件隐藏了我们发在张月红在Nature上发的第二篇Correspondence后的评论。为此我们于11月3日给Nature主编Philip Campbell先生发了封查询隐藏我们评论原因的E-mail（附件1），信中指出我们又查了Nature的有关条款和条件（terms and conditions），但仍不知我们违反了哪一条。发完后当即收到自动回复说他现在不在编辑部，11月10日才能回来，有急事可发给Roseann Campbell。随即我又发给了她，请她转给Philip。没想到这次告状告到主编那还真管用，今天一大早我打开信箱就看到了Nature出版执行编辑Maxine Clarke当晚的来信（附件2），说是我们的评论应放在News《Strong medicine for China's journals》（http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100915/full/467261a.html）后，而不应放在张文后，并说已代我们放好（附件3）。这实在让我们深受感动，虽然当初编辑给我们的信中确实是让我们放张文后（附录4），我们将回信表示深深地感谢。不管怎么说，这比国内一些报刊拒不改错好了不知多少倍。
附件1：11月3日我们给主编的查询信：
Dear Dr. Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature:
On behalf of all co-authors I am writing to you to inquire the exact reason(s) for hiding our comment posted under a Nature Correspondence(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/467789a.html ). Our comment was posted online by me upon receiving a response from Nature regarding the status of our revision on an accepted Correspondence. The editor stated that “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”.
Apparently, Nature Editor has reviewed our revised Correspondence and made the above decision and suggestion. We did what Nature suggested us to do. Our comment has been online for over two weeks without any adverse effect. Then, why all of sudden it has to be hidden?
The hidden notice did not list any specific reason other than repeating a very generic statement of “hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions”. However, after carefully studying Nature’s terms and conditions, we still cannot figure out why our comment should be hidden.
Could you please look into this serious matter and let us know what statement of our comment violated the terms and conditions set out by Nature and thus Nature must hide our comment?
Sincerely yours,
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
On behalf of all co-authors I am writing to you to inquire the exact reason(s) for hiding our comment posted under a Nature Correspondence(http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7317/full/467789a.html ). Our comment was posted online by me upon receiving a response from Nature regarding the status of our revision on an accepted Correspondence. The editor stated that “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”.
Apparently, Nature Editor has reviewed our revised Correspondence and made the above decision and suggestion. We did what Nature suggested us to do. Our comment has been online for over two weeks without any adverse effect. Then, why all of sudden it has to be hidden?
The hidden notice did not list any specific reason other than repeating a very generic statement of “hidden by the moderator in accordance with our terms and conditions”. However, after carefully studying Nature’s terms and conditions, we still cannot figure out why our comment should be hidden.
Could you please look into this serious matter and let us know what statement of our comment violated the terms and conditions set out by Nature and thus Nature must hide our comment?
Sincerely yours,
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
附件2：Nature出版执行编辑Maxine Clarke当晚的来信：
Dear Dr Cui
Thank you for your message to Dr Campbell, which has been passed to me. The letter you received from us suggesting you upload your Correspondence submission as an online comment should have suggested that you post your comment under this News story, to which it pertains:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100915/full/467261a.html
rather than the Correspondence item by Dr Zhang, which was specifically to clarify the scope of the JZUS, and was not part of the broader discussion about ethics which you discuss in your comment.
I have now uploaded your comment on your behalf to the appropriate Nature piece (see URL above).
Yours sincerely
Maxine Clarke
NATURE
Thank you for your message to Dr Campbell, which has been passed to me. The letter you received from us suggesting you upload your Correspondence submission as an online comment should have suggested that you post your comment under this News story, to which it pertains:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100915/full/467261a.html
rather than the Correspondence item by Dr Zhang, which was specifically to clarify the scope of the JZUS, and was not part of the broader discussion about ethics which you discuss in your comment.
I have now uploaded your comment on your behalf to the appropriate Nature piece (see URL above).
Yours sincerely
Maxine Clarke
NATURE
附件3：新闻《Strong medicine for China's journals》及其后的评论
Published online 15 September 2010 | Nature467, 261 (2010) | doi:10.1038/467261a
News
Strong medicine for China's journals
Weak publications will be 'terminated'.
Li Dongdong plans major reforms for Chinese publishing.IMAGINECHINA
Few Chinese scientists would be surprised to hear that many of the country's scientific journals are filled with incremental work, read by virtually no one and riddled with plagiarism. But the Chinese government's solution to this problem came as a surprise last week.
Li Dongdong, a vice-minister of state and deputy director of the General Administration of Press and Publications (GAPP) — the powerful government body that regulates all publications in China — acknowledged that the country's scientific publishing had a "severe" problem, with "a big gap between quality and quantity", and needed reform.
Opening a meeting of scientific publishers in Shanghai on 7 September, Li announced that by January 2011, new regulations will be used to "terminate" weak journals.
Precisely how this reform will work is the subject of hot debate. If an evaluation process finds a journal to be weak, it may be forced to close altogether, or relaunch with a different editorial board, a different title or even a different subject focus.
Those journals judged to be strong will receive support such as tax breaks. Scientific publishing will be concentrated in "five-to-ten large publishing groups" that will compete with each other, says Li. "We will turn China from a large science and technology publisher to a powerful science and technology publisher." GAPP did not respond to Nature 's requests for more information.
News of the regulation startled many of the publishers at last week's meeting, the 6th China Science Journal Development Forum. Some believe that bureaucrats should not be interfering with journals, and others say that powerful scientists will resist the move. But all agreed that China's scientific publishing is in bad shape.
Approximately one-third of the roughly 5,000 predominantly Chinese-language journals are 'campus journals', existing only so that graduate students and professors can accumulate the publications necessary for career advancement, according to one senior publisher. And in a Correspondence to Nature last week, Yuehong Zhang of the Journal of Zhejiang University–Science reported that a staggering 31% of the papers submitted to that campus journal contained plagiarized material (Nature 467, 153; 2010).
Most Chinese journals make their money through funding from their host institutions, and by charging authors per-page publishing fees. "Most are never cited. Who knows if they're even really published. They're ghosts," says one publisher, who declined to be named. Wu Haiyun, a cardiologist at the Chinese PLA General Hospital in Beijing, says that only 5–10% of these journals are worth saving, and the rest are "information pollution".
Most of China's top researchers already forgo Chinese publications for international ones, where they earn the recognition that can promote their career. And they are increasingly successful: in November 2009, scientists from China became the second-most prolific publishers of scientific articles in international scientific journals.
But some Chinese librarians are beginning to baulk at the prices charged by these foreign journals. On 1 September, an open letter signed by 35 librarians criticized foreign science, technology and medicine publishers for "using their monopolistic position" to raise subscription prices annually by more than 14% for the next 3 years. Meanwhile, some of the better Chinese journals are being published in collaboration with foreign companies such as Wiley–Blackwell and Springer, respectively headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey, and Berlin. Cell Research, for example, based at the Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences and co-published by Nature Publishing Group, reached an impact factor of 8.2 in 2009 — the highest in the Asia-Pacific region, including Australia.
Impact factors could provide an important cornerstone of the government's evaluation system. For example, the Chinese Journal Citation Report, published by the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China since 2004 and covering some 1,800 of China's top journals, provides impact factors that measure their significance on the basis of the number of times that articles are cited by peers.
Many Chinese journals are switching to publishing in English to increase their impact factors, and more than 200 English-language science and technology journals are now based in China. ACTA Genetica Sinica became the Journal of Genetics and Genomics in 2007; Neuroscience Bulletin, founded in 1998, switched to English in 2006; and in January 2009, Acta Zoologica Sinica, published since 1935 and the second-oldest journal in China, became Current Zoology. In its first year, the proportion of papers that it published from non-Chinese scientists shot up from 16% to 42%. Having earned a spot on the list of journals counted by Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge, the journal is awaiting its first impact factor. Martin Stevens, a zoologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, says that Current Zoology is now finding a niche. "Before, there weren't any journals that had this relatively broad audience. Many looked at specific areas of biology," says Stevens, who guest edited a special issue of the journal about how the sensory system relates to evolution.
ADVERTISEMENT
A minority of Chinese scientists argue that there is no need for Chinese-language primary research journals at all. All original Chinese research should be published in English-language journals to get the widest audience possible, says Wu, who adds that Chinese-language journals should stick to publishing continuing education and review articles. "Is it necessary for China to have its own journals?" he asks.
The government's answer is an emphatic 'yes'. For Li, strong scientific publishing is a necessary "driving force in innovation and technological strength". Once the new reforms are under way, she says, "journals will be a strong part of our soft power".
See Editorial, page 252.
If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link.
Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.
· #14144
Hi, there,
It is a good news but I am not so sure the government office will and can do it rightly. As we know even in USA or the other developed countries, plagiarism is still occurring! How can we know and who will be the judge for the quality of papers in China now as the corruption is rampant everywhere!
It is a good news but I am not so sure the government office will and can do it rightly. As we know even in USA or the other developed countries, plagiarism is still occurring! How can we know and who will be the judge for the quality of papers in China now as the corruption is rampant everywhere!
But if our government will really do this! It is a good sign for justice and righteousness in China even for the politics because we will be judged by all over the world! And hope Chinese funding AGENCIES will be get more and more fare in granting the funding based scicentific integerity but not not networks. Networking is important but is still subject to science integrity!
Thanks
o 2010-09-16 11:19:32 AM
o Posted by: David pang
· #14183
It is not surprising that Chinese science and technology publishers want to publish their own journals. It indicates that Chinese science has gained confidence and that it has tasted profitability and prestige. On the other hand, publishing scientific journals and making them profitable and globally accepted requires a lot of marketing and cross-cultural skills. Mere excellence in scientific and scholarly content is not enough.
o 2010-09-17 09:44:38 AM
o Posted by: James Chan
· #14185
I'm skeptical that scientific reform is possible from a monolithic power structure, whether political, theological, or economic, that controls everything, whether in China, fundamentalist USA, ossify Vatican City, or anywhere else. Voluntary ethical reforms are always difficult simply because they can embarrass the existing power structure. Ultimately the best form of reform is the continued criticism from the global scientific community across arbitrary but open national boundaries. The publications done in Chinese without providing an English translation for view and criticism from the rest of the world will remain suspect no matter what is said. Zhongguo hua is a beautiful language but we are not concerned about Tang Dynasty poetry here.
o 2010-09-17 11:37:21 AM
o Posted by: Mason Kelsey
· #14221
In science quality is more important than quantity at present Chinese scientist publishing very fast and that thing brings suspect on quality science. If managing of journal quality and editorial board applied sincerely this will be a good for science.
Ranjeet CCMB, India +919533079818
Ranjeet CCMB, India +919533079818
o 2010-09-20 05:03:19 AM
o Posted by: Ranjeet Singh Mahla
· #14237
As a science student graduated from China, I know it is true of Chinese publication. The government should cut down some weak journals. Some journals are becoming thicker and thicker, but the quality is hard to say. Many editors and experts are really irresponsible for the papers. I hope this time they could do something
o 2010-09-20 07:13:59 PM
o Posted by: Rui Wang
· #14265
The government can set up a market for journal articles and then let supply and demand (not bureaucrats) determine the best articles and journals. These ideas are described in my co-authored paper here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2q80214867370564/
David Zetland
o 2010-09-21 12:41:00 PM
o Posted by: David Zetland
· #14270
Kudos to the Chinese goverment for not only recognising the "weakness" of the current state of the chinese scientific publishing industry, but also going to act on it by addressing the "weakness".
But the root of the problem really stems from the the West, where scientific publishing is driven by "profit"!!! How much rubbish has been published in the "strong" Western English journals? A lot, i dare to say! But as long as the Journal is profitable, it will continue to print! I wish the Head responsible for Press and Publications of the Western country can come out and say "we are cleaning house too! Scientifc publishing is now free and that the amount that you publish is no longer a measure for promotion to tenure!". See what will happen!
o 2010-09-21 04:40:29 PM
o Posted by: Sheng Hou
· #15440
Posted on behalf of:
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
Xiaowen Li Beijing Normal University, China
Dehua Wang Chinese Academy of Science, China
Shi V. Liu Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine, USA
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 (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 (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.
o 2010-11-03 06:45:52 AM
o Posted by: Maxine Clarke
附件4：10月6日编辑来信
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,
Anne
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,
Anne
https://m.sciencenet.cn/blog-84542-380331.html
上一篇：更shame的事自然地发生了——Nature的言论自由受限
下一篇：《Cell》撤稿，“倒念”刘实
扫一扫，分享此博文
全部作者的精选博文
全部作者的其他最新博文
全部精选博文导读
相关博文
- • Minerals线下恳谈会：履践致远、与时偕行——对话中国科学院广州地球化学研究所期刊合作学者
- • 聚英才 建高地 | 北京理工大学“特立青年学者”全球招聘开启
- • 700年后日本或濒临灭绝？日本学者推算预测：届时或仅剩1名15岁以下孩子
- • [转载]【同位素视角】非英语母语学者如何区分’e.g.’, ‘i.e.’, ‘namely’与‘such as’等混淆难题
- • 美国佐治亚大学等机构学者：刈割策略对Bulldog 805紫花苜蓿+Tifton 85狗牙根混播草地产量及品质的影响
- • 美国堪萨斯州立大学、密苏里大学等机构学者研究成果：土壤水分管理策略和品种多样性对紫花苜蓿产量、营养品质和农场盈利能力的影