立即注册 登录
华人科学网 (华科网) 返回首页

求真留实的个人空间 http://www.sciencenets.com/?38 [收藏] [复制] [分享] [RSS]

博客

热度 8已有 3985 次阅读2015-12-11 10:32 |个人分类:辩论争鸣|系统分类:学术打假| 伦理

《科学伦理》“张生家案”公开调查总结

A Summary of Scientific Ethics’ Open Investigation on the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case
《科学伦理》张生家案公开调查总结

 

December 10, 2015

20151210

 

On November 11, 2015 Scientific Ethics launched an open investigation on Sheng-Jia Zhang Case involving publicly disclosed dispute between him and Chan Xie as well as Bai Lu.  Open questionnaires were sent to all major players in the dispute as well as minor participants in the event.  Responses and evidences were received from Zhang and his students.  Xie, Lu, and others did not response to Scientific Ethics.  Based on the responses and some direct evidences presented by Scientific Ethics as well as other publications from various sources and in various forms a “virtual academic court” issued a preliminary judgement to all parties named in the Scientific Ethics’ open investigation and requested a response within 10days.  Now that deadline has passed and no contempt has been received against that preliminary judgement.  Thus, we at Scientific Ethics feel comfortable and confident to release initial conclusions of our investigation.

20151111日,针对已公开的张生家与谢灿及张生家与鲁白间的争议,《科学伦理》开始了张生家案的公开调查。公开问卷送给争论中所有主角和参与事件的配角。张生家和他的学生递交了答案和证据。谢、鲁、以及其他人未答复《科学伦理》。基于这些答复和《科学伦理》列举的一些直接证据以及从多种渠道得到的各种形式的出版物,一个虚拟学术法庭向《科学伦理》公开调查涉及各方发出了初步判决并要求10日之内给予反应。现在限期已过且没有收到抗辨。因此,我们《科学伦理》的同仁可以轻松而自信地公布我们调查的初步结论。

 

 

1.      Zhang’s research paper published in Sci. Bull (DOI 10.1007/s11434-015-0902-0) has correctly attributed authorship to individuals who made substantial intellectual contribution to the reported research and also adequately acknowledged individuals for their respective non-intellectual support such as providing research materials by Xie and laboratory space by Lu.   The authorship practice employed by Zhang adhered with internationally-accepted standard such as those stipulated by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics and by ICMJEInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors).

1.张在《科学通报》发表的研究论文(DOI 10.1007/s11434-015-0902-0)对做出重要知识贡献的个人指定了正确的作者地位,也对非知识性支持的个人给予了充分的致谢,例如关于谢的研究材料的提供和鲁的实验室空间提供。张对于作者的指定符合国际接受的标准,如出版伦理委员会和医学杂志国际委员会的规定。

2.      Zhang submitted his paper to Sci. Bull. on September 9, 2015 after Xie submitted his paper to Nature Materials on August 4th, 2015 after rejection by Nature on June 1st, 2015.  The earlier acceptance (September 11, 2015) and publication (online on September 14, 2015) of Zhang’s paper than Xie’s paper (accepted on October 21, 2015 and published online on November 16, 2015; DOI: 10.1038/NMAT4484) reflected different speeds between two journals in processing manuscripts.  It should not be characterized as Zhang’s rush into publication and thus grabbing credit from Xie.

2. 张是在谢的文章被《自然》于201561日拒稿、201584日转投《自然-材料》的一个多月之后的201599日才投稿《科学通报》。张文的接受(2015911日)和在线发表(2015914日)比谢文的张文的接受(20151021日)和在线发表(20151116; DOI: 10.1038/NMAT4484)早,但这是两个杂志处理稿件速度不同的反映,不应被看作是张抢先发表并夺取谢的荣誉。

3.      Zhang’s paper in Sci. Bull (DOI 10.1007/s11434-015-0902-0) describing magnetogenetic research is quite different from Xie’s paper in Nature Materials (DOI: 10.1038/NMAT4484) reporting discovery of magnetic protein complex claimed to be a “biocompass” for magnetic sensing.  Publication of Zhang’s paper earlier would not jeopardize Xie’s publication later as it was shown indeed in this case.

 

3. 张的《科学通报》论文(DOI 10.1007/s11434-015-0902-0)描述磁遗传研究,与谢的报告一个被称为有磁感应的生物指南针的磁蛋白复合体的研究大不相同。张文的早先发表不会对谢文的后来发表有害,事实也证明如此。

4.      Zhang and Xie made an informal and unofficial agreement which contains a deal of having Xie as a co-author in Zhang’s paper.  Zhang also agreed to let Xie publish his paper first.  But this kind of personal agreement does not conform to common ethical standards and directly violates internationally-accepted criteria for authorship.  On the other hand, Zhang’s exclusion of Xie from authorship, from whatever reasons disputable, retuned authorship assignment on his paper back to norm.  In contrast, Xie’s lack of citing Zhang’s earlier publication is unethical because he should at least add a note-in-proof to mention Zhang’s earlier publication that he not only knew but also complained about.  Xie’s inclusion of a paragraph on magnetogenetics in his Nature Materials paper revised from his manuscript rejected by Nature should be regarded as a credit robbery because he learnt that from Zhang but did not even acknowledge Zhang’s intellectual contribution.

 

4.张和谢达成过非正式非官方的协议,其中包括谢在张文当作者的交易。张也同意谢先发表论文。但这样的私人协议与公共的伦理标准不符而且直接违反了国际接受的作者标准。反过来说,不管是因为什么可争辩的原因,张把谢排除在作者之外倒是把他论文作者的指定回到了正轨。与此对比,谢对张已发表的论文不引用才是不合伦理,因为他不仅知道而且还抱怨过张的论文早发,谢至少应加一个校正加注指明张已发表的论文。谢在被《自然》拒稿的修改稿中加进一段磁遗传的内容可被看作抢夺荣誉,因为他是从张那里学到这点,但他对张的知识贡献甚至于没有致谢。

The above conclusions are based on hard-core evidence and non-disputable facts and conform with world-wide-accepted scientific ethical standards.  The dispute on the actual partners of Xie’s collaboration as well as Lu’s accusation on Zhang as disclosed in a series of Nature news (published on September 21, November 5, and November 16, respectively) remained to be investigated.  However, such further investigation needs cooperation from respected authorities in Peking University and Tsinghua University.  Without opening two “black boxes” (seen in attached diagram) the whole truth of the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case will not be known.  Thus, we appeal public as well as international organizations to pay attention to the questions remained to be answered for Sheng-Jia Zhang Case.  We also wish respective Chinese authorities to launch their investigations into the handling of the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case by Peking University and Tsinghua University.  These extended investigations are necessary for exposing potentially more serious problems other than academic misconduct.  Exposure and solution to those problems may greatly improve “ecology” of Chinese scientific research and truly boost innovation in Chinese scientific research.

 

上述结论是基于坚实的证据和无可争辩的事实,并且符合世界范围接受的科学伦理标准。但是,与谢合作的人到底是谁以及在《自然》(2015921日,115日,1116日)系列新闻所透露的鲁对张的指控还有待调查。但这些进一步的调查需要北京大学和清华大学有关机构的合作。如果不打开两个“黑箱子”(如图所示)张生家案的全部真相就不可能得知。因此我们呼吁公众和国际组织对张生家案尚需解答的遗留问题给与关注。我们也希望中国官方对北京大学和清华大学处理张生家案的行为进行调查。这些更深人的调查对于暴露比学术不端可能更为严重的问题是必须的。对这些问题的揭露和解决将极大改善中国科学研究的“生态”,也将真正推动中国科学研究的创新。

 

This summary will be sent to all parties involved in the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case and authorities directly handling and/or indirectly overseeing the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case.  Scientific magazines/journals as well as newspapers/social media covering or interested in the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case will also be informed with this summary of our independent and open investigation.

 

本总结将被发给涉及张生家案的所有各方以及直接处理和/或间接关注张生家案的官方。科学杂志和报纸社交媒体也将被告知我们独立的公开调查的总结。

 

We believe an old saying in Chinese: paper cannot contain fire.  We also believe sparkling fire can spread all over land.  A fireball has been ignited with the Sheng-Jia Zhang Case and already spread into Nature.  Let us see if natural rules will be followed so that this fireball will not only burn through any paper wrapped around it but also flame over whole scientific land to destroy any unethical weeds.

我们相信中国的一句老话:纸包不住火。我们也相信星星之火可以燎原。张生家案已点燃一个火球并已扩散到《自然》。让我们看自然规律是否体现以至于这个火球不仅烧穿包裹它的纸皮而且还烧遍科学大地摧毁一切不伦理杂草。

 

Sincerely yours,

你最诚挚的,

 

Shi V. Liu, Editor-in-Chief, Scientific Ethics

刘实,《科学伦理》主编

SVL8EPA@gmail.com

 

P.S.

A diagram showing timeline of events and relationship of players, with two black boxes identified for further investigations.

 

后注:

关于事件时间和人物关系的示意图,其中标明两个有待进一步调查的黑箱子。




路过

鸡蛋
4

鲜花
1

握手

雷人

刚表态过的朋友 (5 人)

分享到: 更多

发表评论 评论 (8 个评论)

回复 tempid123 2015-12-11 11:49
深人
===========
深入
回复 cobra 2015-12-11 12:50
按西方学术界的标准,此调查结果事实清楚无疑,真相已大白于天下:张是受害者,是被撸百-血灿-绕艺-施公公联合伪造证据诬告,迫害,在中国身败名裂,无家可归,走投无路。但对于中国这个无间地狱中的两个顶奸黑帮组织北大,清华里的魑魅魍魉,这个调查结论连它们的阴毛都触动不了。
回复 wofosina 2015-12-11 13:27
饶鲁等团伙已经基本控制了国内的科研舆论,我估计面对这个结果 他们会沉默以对,他们也不会受到任何损伤。过段时间风平浪静,这群人就 继续“灯红酒绿、醉死梦生”,梦想有一天能被洋大人赏个炸药奖。
回复 Scidef赛德夫 2015-12-11 13:33
很好,棒!
回复 求真留实 2015-12-11 22:52
tommy, come here to say something!
回复 Scidef赛德夫 2015-12-12 02:24
求真留实: tommy, come here to say something!
Tommy已经更换身份为“李大仙”?
回复 求真留实 2015-12-12 02:55
大师,大仙都没用!
回复 姚小鸥 2015-12-15 18:44
刘实先生,您留言给我说,给我留言不善的不是“直言了”是王大元,是猜的还是有根据?请一定回答。即使猜测也不怪您,但不能没有一个说法。我近来要在科学网上写文章说这件事。拜托。

facelist

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 立即注册

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|华人科学网 (华科网)  

GMT+8, 2017-10-24 11:54

返回顶部