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 Natures 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 附件3： 新闻《 Strong medicine for China's journals 》及其后的评论 Published online 15 September 2010 | Nature 467 , 261 (2010) | doi:10.1038/467261a News 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. ADVERTISEMENT
标签: 改错就好
