亦明写了很多貌似举证充分的文章，试图全面揭示方舟子的阴暗面。不过，感觉他的行为还是有点走火入魔，尤其是最近在英国《自然》杂志给方舟子颁奖之后写的一系列文章。我是没有时间阅读那些文章，但是看到他把以前给方舟子颁发的“抄袭证书”也强塞给《自然》杂志的邮箱，【1】感觉亦明的行为真是有点 Out Of Control 了。那种东东拿出来在聊天网上晒几下逗逗乐就成了，把它邮寄给国际著名学术期刊，还能期待什么样的回复？ 有时候我老琢磨这么一个问题。方舟子的行为和人品在网上曾经受到过很多人（包括我自己）的蔑视，但是，另一方面，不管你是粉他还是恶心他，都很难否认过去这些年来他的存在还是带来了一定的社会价值。除了方舟子个人能够获得的有限利益，难道亦明真的有足够的信心能够说服大家，让大家认为方舟子对社会还是有很大的破坏作用吗？ 至少我是没有被说服。 【1】 http://www.2250s.com/read.php?28-17192-17192 注：下图来自亦明的文章，上面网页可以查看他的文章和图片的细节。
寻正 在数天前，我公开抗议了《自然》杂志组织的首届John Maddox科学奖，同时，《自然》也收到更多的抗议。方舟子阵营的人嘲笑我英文不行，我也的确夹带了一些语法或者打字错误，但《自然》却没有在乎这一点，而他们采取了行动，起码《自然》的编辑觉得有必要给我回信，表明他们正在进行调查。下面是《自然》的编辑给我的回信： Dear Dr Liao, Thank you for your submission to Nature’s Correspondence section. As we have received several letters about the John Maddox Prize awards and because of the serious allegations being made, it will take us much longer than usual to reach a decision about your letter while we fully investigate the complaints. Thank you for your patience. 【译文：感谢您向《自然》来信选登栏目投稿。我们接收到了多封针对John Maddox奖的来信，由于这些投述事关重大，我们要全面地调查这些投述，这会使得我们针对您的来信的处理远超出通常处理所需要的时间。谢谢您的耐心等候。】 Yours sincerely, Rosalind Cotter Correspondence Editor, Nature 看来我们的英文虽然有错误，但比方舟子急出胃病来的英文更受欢迎。得到《自然》的鼓励，我当然要再接再励了，以帮助《自然》了解他们犯下了一个多么严重的错误，于是乎，我的“烂”英文又上阵了，欢迎方粉子、方舟子、与方妻子一齐拍砖。要比英文，你们也整两篇公开支持信嘛，要是《自然》较了真，把发出来的奖收了回去，那多难堪啊？那时咱们也来学习学习逼出来的英文的韵味嘛。 First John Maddox Prize Supports Hypocrisy, Dishonest, Fraud, and Bad Science Dear Editor Rosalind Cotter Thank you very much for your response regarding the first John Maddox Prize. My allegations and those of other Fang critics are indeed serious and they warrant further investigation of the winner Fang and appropriate corrective actions. There is ample evidence to share if Nature intends to conduct a serious investigation of those serious allegations. The exposure of Fang by his critics has been much richer in detail and wider in scope than any exposures that Fang has ever carried out of other people. Fang is losing credibility in China for sure. One example is his speech of accepting the prize. It has become widely ridiculed by all walks of life – even people who have little English speaking background started to demonstrate that they spoke better English than Fang. Such a response might be out of proportion with any other men, but understandable with Fang, who has been playing English language expert for over a decade and insulted many people over their English skills. Yet Fang’s fall is much slower than expected for couple of reasons. Fang’s wife’s thesis was completely plagiarized. I’m not exaggerating here, for at least more than 90% of her contents were traced back to original authorship just through Internet search. Yet she has avoided all the consequences so far, even with the chairmen of her thesis committee admitting his oversight and reported the irregularity to the school openly! The capability to escape her deserving punishment speaks one fact in China: she is well connected and protected. Being a senior official of Xinhua News Agency, she has provided all the media backing to Fang. As a freelance writer, as long as the media organizations are not willing to sanction Fang and still pay him for his shoddy science and plagiarized pieces, Fang is unreachable and unassailable by his critics. Fang’s plagiarism activities have mostly been cross language, which gives him an advantage of possible deniability: he always denies any allegations of impropriety. When Science investigated Fang in 2001 and called his writing unacceptable. He proudly declared victory over his critics because Science refused to charge him with plagiarism. Then what about unacceptability? He would argue that Science was no longer credible because he wrote for Chinese audience—American standard did not apply. It’s very funny that Fang referenced Science’s conclusion all the time to prove he was innocent. To examine any of Fang’s unacceptable writing requires much time and expertise; most people are unwilling to spend resources to examine Fang’s work. Instead, they take a shortcut in their reasoning. Fang has denied the charges, seemed to be offended by the charges, and offered evidence claimed to the contrary. Then Fang must be innocent. I am one of the few who want to get to the bottom of things and spend all the time necessary to examine his evidence. I was initially shocked, then quite amused, and many times forced into laughter. Nature’s investigation will be frustrated by Fang’s cooperation (don’t be surprised, this man is inherently funny). For example, how did I find out that Fang cheated his partners out of their interest in New Threads? I read the thousand page emails that Fang provided on his website. It’s all there, but it takes time that Fang either thought that no body was willing to spend to examine them or he had a truly distorted value system that prevented him from telling right from wrong. According to Fang, he did nothing wrong and his partners tried to conspire against him and the organization, which of course he defeated. Evidence was all here, he so claimed. Almost everybody would be convinced by his confidence and cooperation. I was shocked and then amused. Some of the private information was masked. The one who opposed him most, named Zhang, had all his private information on display while Fang’s friends may enjoy friendly “*****”. The very file tells you that when Fang registered the organization under his name, he surprised even one of the three board directors he handpicked. To his defense, there was a prior agreement to register the organization under his or another man’s name. He just seized upon the opportune moment when he was a minority. The whole issue was centered on multimedia edition of their electronic journal. Fang claimed superiority over a professional editor and then came the dispute and conspiracy allegations. Fang drove all disagreeing partners out and they created a different electronic journal in multimedia format. New Threads has never issued any multimedia version thereafter except for its colored logo. As Fang’s serious critic, I really never need to “dig up dirty secrets” of Fang through other sources. Fang often displays them right under your nose. But he creates enough smoke and mirrors to confuse others’ judgment. His trick has apparently worked and there are still people in and outside China who support him genuinely. One of his favorite, and mine too, arguments against plagiarism allegations is that how he, the number one fraud buster who had charged so many people with plagiarism, could commit the sin of plagiarism. Should he not already know all the rules of plagiarism and how to prevent it? Those are questions to us that we constantly seek answers, but they are the strongest proof that Fang could not, therefore, did not commit plagiarism. Nature probably has had a taste of this Fang flavored reasoning already? Many Chinese scholars fall for such an erroneous logic, not because they are truly that gullible, but because it takes much time to examine the facts, especially the facts are hidden by language barriers and overwhelming data redundancy. By the way, Fang has been caught many times for fabricating evidences. He likes to submit what he calls as original but later edited materials as evidence. For example, Fang inserted a sentence to reference Dr. Root-Berstein when his original article was questioned by MSU. The referencing sentence does not alleviate plagiarism allegations at all, but it adds deniability on his part. Rampant plagiarism and copyright infringement in China call for a hero to highlight the social wrongs. Like everybody else, Nature hungrily embraced this cheaply made Chinese version of a standing-up science hero. But you picked one of the funniest hypocrites in China. Let’s talk more examples of fraud and fraud busting. Li Yu (pen named SiMaNan) is a notorious unofficial politician (wanted to be and behaved like one but never gained significant posts) that is Fang’s best friends. Yu always teaches the Chinese audience to hate U.S. or things western. He is a Maoist and views the western societies as corrupted and conspiring against China. He has fought universal values and the calls for reform of Chinese government, transparency, and democracy. He was only recently censored because of his connection to the falling politician Xilai Bo (He has been rumored to be the candidate of minister of propaganda should Bo prevail). Otherwise he has been a convenient tool to suppress human rights and calls for political reform; therefore he, like Fang, has had privileged access to state controlled mass media. He makes a living out of his political brainwashing of Chinese audience, a wealthy one indeed because he can support his son an ironic American education (publically he always reveals his antagonism of U.S. and other western nations). Mr. Yu was involved in a big fraud in China, the YiLiSheng, or Power of Ants, scheme. Simply the name of the scheme indicates pseudo-science. It is rather disgusting to watch TV shows where Mr. Yu promotes the “Power of Ants”. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese were swindled out of their wealth so that Mr. Yu’s son can be educated in U.S. I know several instances that the fraud-buster Fang was alerted to this fraud and Mr. Yu’s role in this scandal. Yet, Yu gets his free rides with Fang all the time: Fang published Yu very often, no matter how reddish his views are. Hypocritically, Fang claims that he and his organization avoid politics. Yu has never been challenged by our hero Fang. Yu is one of Fang’s fundraisers in China. Do we need to say more? Of course, there is always more to say. The case of Haifeng Sun is really illuminating. Fang was desperate when the scandal of his wife Liu’s plagiarism case gained media attention. He vowed to seek revenge on several named individuals, including me. Sun was certainly not in the picture. He was a bystander and caught in the traffic. With everybody focusing on Liu’s thesis, he commented that our allegations looked like true and she should take responsibility for it. Fang had been seeking revenge on us all the time and he had played all his cards against us. Now there were no more cards to play. He decided that Sun should be made an example of so that there could be a warning sign to others to stay away from criticizing him and his wife. He started to attack Sun and accused Sun of plagiarism, even before examining his thesis -- he was confident that he could and would find something. He did. He found one instance where Sun did not cite appropriately and Sun promptly apologized in public. He found another instance where Sun’s thesis born similarity to someone else’s work. He helped Sun to find out that Sun was a victim of plagiarism. Nonetheless, Fang called Sun a cheater and demanded his school to fully investigate Sun. The school obliged and found Sun without any serious wrong doings. This did not stop Fang from continuing to abuse Sun verbally and calling him a cheater or whatever names he wanted to call. It’s rather unfortunate that Chinese is not the universal language of the world. Nature editors and staff missed a lot of fun with the funniest person in the world. Fang’s vehement attack of Sun was laughed as aiming at the bird and shooting the squirrel. The squirrel just happened to be on the same tree with the bird. Yet, as one of the serious critics of Fang, the strongest protest that I’ve got for exposing Fang was that I’m retaliating Fang for his attack on me. So, it seems, Fang and his supporters do not approve of retaliatory fraud-busting. Well, that would curtail Fang’ livelihood. Do Fang and his gangs care about contradicting themselves? Never. If you had known one tenth about the true Fang, you would disqualify Fang as a candidate for the John Maddox Prize instantly. The above examples clearly demonstrate my point. How can you be so ignorant as to award Fang the Maddox Prize? Sir John Maddox certainly does not deserve this type insult. Fang should be awarded the anti-John Maddox Prize. Let’s put it in another way. Even if Fang deserves the Prize in all other perspectives (there is almost none), will you give him the Prize knowing those character-showing examples? Not if I'm a judge, not even if I’m desperate without other deserving candidates. I plead with Nature and the judges. Please take a serious look at Fang and your evaluation processes. You have a catastrophic failure at hand. It’s rather fortunate for the non-English-speaking Chinese, you can play “stood up for science” charade in the west, but the Chinese audience only enjoys the spbroken (spoken and broken) English of the award-winning speech. We did gain a lot by this award. We came to know more about Fang because you forced him to speak English publicly. We had known that he’s bad in English, which is why he always writes bad science, we had just never imagined this self-claimed English language expert to be this bad. In the spirit of transparency, I will also make my above criticism and this letter publicly accessible. I will appreciate it if you share this letter with other Editors and staff of Nature and Judges of John Maddox Prize. Yours Respectfully, Junlin Liao, Ph.D.
这篇论文是预测药物分子的副作用： “Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11159.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20120614 灌水嫌疑的理由有2点：第一，这篇文章的方法并不新，而且很粗糙，准确度是有问题的，另外也不实用。第二，他们以前已经发过一篇方法和内容都非常相似的文章，也在著名的NATURE杂志。 “Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7270/abs/nature08506.html 【PDF 文件： http://www.bkslab.org/publications/keiser_2009.pdf 】 2篇文章讲的其实是一个意思，利用的是相同的事实：结构相似的分子可能具有相似的生物活性，以及一个药物分子通常同时跟2个或者多个蛋白有一定的生物活性。言下之意就是，相关的研究一方面可以帮助认识药物分子的副作用，另一方面，有可能帮助找到新的药物靶体。 这两篇文章的主要作者是UCSF的 Brian Shoichet, 是本领域受尊敬的人士，也曾经在我工作过的公司担任顾问。注意文章里面的方法已经成为湾区一个公司的主要技术。 http://seachangepharma.com/technology.php 从商业角度上讲，炒作一下是不妨大碍，反正华尔街很多人口袋里面有的是钱。不过，这种文章频繁地出现在Nature， 怕是审稿过程有些不太正常。 这2篇文章的论点和方法都没有新的内容，只是没有人产生这么多的数据，而且做出了不少实实在在的结果。这也印证了我的一个假设，你想发CNS，或者PNAS，一般要有新的生物数据，要是癌症类活性数据就酷呆了，如果文章的作者名单里面有个牛人，那就完美了。至于方法和研究本身，差不多就够了，每天哪里有那么多新方法啊？
480S88a.pdf 前一段时间接受了澳大利亚科普作者James Crow的采访，谈了对肠道菌群与中药药效的关系的看法。正如我国微生态学科的创始人魏曦教授所指出的那样，“微生态学有可能成为打开中医奥秘的一把金钥匙”。许多中药的成分是不被吸收入血的，但是，却有疗效。现在看来，它们可能是通过调节菌群来发挥作用的。由于越来越多的证据表明，结构失调的肠道菌群在肥胖、糖尿病等慢性病的发生、发展中具有十分重要的作用，因此，中草药进入肠道后，如果能够纠正失调的菌群结构，就有可能发挥药效。James引用了我们的综述论文，在他的文章中系统介绍了这些观点。他的文章于12月21日在《自然》杂志的增刊Nature Outlook上发表。同时发表的还有一组讨论传统亚洲医学与新药研发的关系的文章，建议感兴趣者可以去 http://www.nature.com/nature/outlook/asian_medicine/ 下载。 Microbiome: That healthy gut feeling Many ingredients in traditional herbal medicines cannot be absorbed by the human gut. Could our microbial inhabitants do for us what we can't do ourselves? 传统草药中的很多成份不能被人的肠道吸收。我们体内的微生物是不是可以替我们做我们自己做不了的事呢？ 原文在这里： 480S88a.pdf
张月红编辑应该让 Nature 进一步认错 很高兴读到：浙大学报编辑张月红先生的据理力争的来信在 Nature 上发表了，来信要求纠正《浙大学报》英文版是国际期刊 (International), 不是一般的校园杂志 (Campus journal) ， 这样就给前些时间有些读者误读的好像是浙大教授学生的投稿存在 31% 剽窃（抄袭）进行了澄清。来信说，浙大学报的审稿人来自 67 个国家， 64.4% 的稿件来自杭州以外的地区，其中 50% 的稿件来自 46 个国家和地区。 我觉得张月红编辑的勇气是值得赞赏的，但是有几点还是希望张月红继续与 Nature 交涉： 1． Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized, 应该改为 An (one) International journal . 。 2． 既然 50% 的稿件来自 46 个国家和地区，那么 In ancient China, for example, students were typically encouraged to copy the words of their masters. 这句话必须改正， 46 个国家和地区的作者都受到中国古代文化的影响的结论显然是不成立的。 （注：张编辑的原文是： For instance, in ancient China, some students were encouraged to repeat the words of their masters in their own writing ） Nature 发表的那个来信的这两个明显有误读的导向性，比纠正是不是 Campus journal 要重要得多。我相信张编辑也不会同意 Nature 这样的修改。所以，应该继续努力，进一步让其澄清。 剽窃（抄袭）是全世界学术界都存在的问题，所以一定不是中国古代文化的影响所致。学术不端应属于个人修养和学术伦理问题，不是一个民族的文化问题。 两篇来信PDF： ZhangYHNature1 ZhangYHNature2 ZhangYHNatureproof
科技期刊发展的一剂猛药？ 2010年9月7日至8日，第六届中国科技期刊发展论坛在上海举行。新闻出版总署副署长李东东出席论坛并作主题发言。《Nature》杂志在9月15日以Strong medicine for China's journals为标题做了报道。但尚没有看到相关的与猛药有关的国内报道。 真心希望我国的科技期刊能够越办越好。正如李副署长所说： 我国科技期刊面临着良好的发展机遇，科技期刊管理者和出版工作者不仅要积极迎接和适应科技发展及国际学术出版竞争的挑战，更要增强责任感和使命感，不断提升我国科技期刊的国际 影响力 ，使其真正成为我国文化建设和科技发展的重要力量。 （引自 http://chuban.henanci.com/Pages/2010910152150.shtml ） Scidev.net转述Nature的相关报道说： 在上周（9月7日）在上海举行的一场科学出版人会议上，中国宣布将从科学技术出版大国转变为科学技术出版强国。它打算从明年1月开始终结弱的期刊，为强的期刊提供财政激励，但是尚未公布具体的实施方案。（ http://www.scidev.net/zh/news/zh-136748.html ） 为方便来访的朋友，将Nature文字贴在这儿： ==== Strong medicine for China's journals Weak publications will be 'terminated'. David Cyranoski 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 UniversityScience 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 510% 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 WileyBlackwell 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. 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. 《Nature》文章中说道：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. 请从此网址访问《Nature》原文： http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100915/full/467261a.html 相关中文新闻一则： http://chuban.henanci.com/Pages/2010910152150.shtml 上海市日前举行了第六届中国科技期刊发展论坛 来源：中国新闻出版报 作者：金鑫 编辑：孙争 据中国新闻出版报消息，上海市9月7日~8日举行了第六届中国科技期刊发展论坛，全国人大常委会副委员长、中国科协主席韩启德为本次论坛主席。业内专家、学者围绕出版业变革中的中国科技期刊发展之路这一主题进行了深入探讨。中国科技期刊发展论坛是中国科协于2004年创办的一个连续性学术交流品牌项目，是中国科协打造精品科技期刊工程的重要抓手。中国科协书记处书记冯长根出席论坛并致辞，近400位中外嘉宾参加论坛。 新闻出版总署副署长李东东出席论坛并作主题发言。李东东指出，在社会主义经济体制不断转变、出版体制不断完善的过程中，科技期刊管理者和出版工作者要进一步转变思想，深化改革，使科技期刊成为我国出版业改革发展的先锋力量。 李东东说，科技期刊是我国新闻出版事业的重要组成部分。改革开放以来，广大科技期刊工作者牢记使命，立足本职，扎实工作，为推动我国科技事业的进步作出了积极贡献。但是，与发达国家科技期刊发展规模和质量相比，我国科技期刊仍然存在着一定差距。李东东表示，当前我国新闻出版业正处在一个新的发展阶段，出现了产业融合不断深化、新兴出版势头迅猛、数字技术不断创新、产业形态日趋完善的新形势，科技期刊要借助科研开发以及出版业、传媒业、信息服务业不断发展的推动力，积极实现科技期刊业态转变，获得新的发展动力。 李东东指出，科技期刊在发展过程中，一要切实转变资源配置方式，培育和重塑新型市场主体。对已形成规模和具有发展潜力的重点科技期刊要加大扶持力度，予以政策支持，推动优秀科技期刊进一步做大做强。二要积极应用新媒体新技术，获得新的发展动力。科技期刊要利用内容制作的优势，充分运用数字化手段，在刊物的表现形式、为读者服务的功能及延伸期刊的价值上，进行大胆尝试，作引领期刊数字化的表率。三要建立优胜劣汰机制，加大对优秀科技期刊扶持力度。李东东说，新闻出版总署将在完善学术期刊质量评估标准、建立健全学术期刊编辑队伍管理制度、加大对违法违规现象管理处罚力度等方面采取措施，优化学术期刊发展环境，推动学术期刊发展，为学术期刊健康可持续发展创造有利条件。 李东东表示，一个国家科技期刊水平，反映了这个国家的科技实力、科技共同体的凝聚力。我国科技期刊面临着良好的发展机遇，科技期刊管理者和出版工作者不仅要积极迎接和适应科技发展及国际学术出版竞争的挑战，更要增强责任感和使命感，不断提升我国科技期刊的国际影响力，使其真正成为我国文化建设和科技发展的重要力量。
晚上读到这篇文章： 张月红发表说明称《自然》未经同意擅改其文章标题 那个声明就免了吧，因为你在人家那里发文章就得看人家的规矩。看看人家杂志是如何讲的： http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/others.html#correspondence 2. Correspondence These items are 'letters to the Editor' : short comments on topical issues of public and political interest, anecdotal material, or readers' reactions to informal material published in Nature (for example, Editorials, News, News Features, Books Arts reviews, and Commentaries). 【此初略去N段文字】 All accepted contributions are edited for publication . Proofs are sent by e-mail . Occasionally, letters have to be cut after proofs have been sent. Nature will endeavour to ensure authors see these changes, but cannot guarantee to do so. Titles of letters are chosen by Nature . 上面的文字清楚地说明了人家有权做修改，并且不能保证通知作者。 一般人都不容易注意这种细节，不过经历过一次的人就会印象深刻。我在2006年给Nature写过一封短信，被接受了，而且文章的标题被修改了，不过，比我原来的标题强多了，自然没有必要做任何形式的抗议。 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7099/full/442132a.html Misconduct: forum should not be used to settle scores 【学术腐败：论坛不应该被人用来打击报复。】
标签: 自然杂志
