直言了专栏(zhiyan-le)- 中国学术评价网
 
方舟子的语际剽窃和自我剽窃之厚颜(有法规对照说明)。 (9390 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 08:51AM

方舟子的语际剽窃和自我剽窃之厚颜(有法规对照说明)。
直言了,2010-12-14。
**
**
**
真相大白了,被一些媒体包装的“打假人士”方舟子,其实是造假最大者,至少,他搞抄袭剽窃的行为超过任何已处理案情;譬如,在他的所谓“科普”出版物中,有大量的没给来源的翻译文字、通过翻译编辑而把别人的作品盗窃为己有作品。面对批评,方舟子等狡辩说,搞科普和搞翻译的抄袭剽窃不是剽窃抄袭。--- 在中国社会,除了方舟子,还能有谁能那么厚颜无耻?
**
**
判断和指控某人行为是否抄袭剽窃带有司法指控和法律责任的意义,因而不能以个人意志办事,而要依法办事,即法律至高无上、所有的人和组织都要遵纪守法。既然方某自称有美国博士学位,那就说明他应该具备起码的学术行为规范方面的公民常识。就让我们来看看美国的法规规范是如何定义抄袭剽窃的。
**
**
**
美国联邦法规规定原文:
**
F. Plagiarism -- The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. (来源附后)。
**
美国法规说得很清楚,使用别人的思想、程序、结果、词语而不说明来源,就是抄袭剽窃行为。那规定并不受语言文字或文章形式的限制,即:不管作者使用什么语言文字或写什么作品,都必须遵守那法规规定。
**
**
就翻译编译而论,没给出被翻译作品内容来源者,也是抄袭剽窃行为,专门术语是“interlingual plagiarism”。下面是美国联邦政府卫生部颁布的相关定义原文:
**
Plagiarism by translation (interlingual plagiarism) -- that is, verbatim, unacknowledged translation, with no attribution (or perhaps perfunctory acknowledgement) given to the original author. Translators may claim credit for the effort and felicity of translation, of course, but not for "authorship" of the resulting text.
来源:ORI/AAAS CONFERENCE ON PLAGIARISM AND THEFT OF IDEAS。June 21-22, 1993, National Institutes of Health。
连接:[ori.hhs.gov]。
**
注:我没找到“interlingual plagiarism”的现代汉语标准翻译,暂且用“语际剽窃”吧。若您有或看到标准翻译,请以那为准并对这暂且用法做出纠正。
**
就通过翻译手段搞抄袭剽窃(“语际剽窃”),美国大学都有师生行为规范的明文规定,这里是个例子(其它大学也有,不一一列举了):
**
Translation from one language to another is not using your own words and ideas and is treated as plagiarism. Translations fall under the guidelines for quotations, summaries and paraphrasing.
来源:The University of West Florida Plagiarism Policy,
连接:[uwf.edu]。
**
**
对比法规规范看,很清楚,方舟子发表的东西,不管文章形式是什么,用别人东西和把别人东西搞翻译编译而不给来源,那就是抄袭剽窃行为,即方某的的狡辩只能证明方舟子自己是个造假成性和厚颜无耻的人。
**
**
**

严格遵守法规,还可看到方某有过多次重复的“自我抄袭剽窃”行为。
**
**
美国联邦政府标准局推荐的行业规范,清楚说明了相同的抄袭剽窃的定义,并给出了防治“自我抄袭剽窃”行为的规范,有关定义文字原文如下:
**
Self-plagiarism is a related issue. In this document we define self-plagiarism as the verbatim or near-verbatim reuse of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work without citing the original source.(来源附后)。
**
即:作者再使用自己已发表的和享有版权的作品而不说明来源,也属于抄袭剽窃行为。(注:根据这条款规定,就享有版权的作品而做“一稿多投”,是伤害出版部门权益的行为、也是作者自我伤害的行为。)。
**

在方舟子发表的东西中,有大量的、整篇或部分地再用自己已发表且享有版权的作品而不给来源的内容。不必多说,那也是抄袭剽窃行为。
**
**
**
方舟子自称有美国博士学位,却连美国中学生的知识都没有。他的学历学位是真是假?
**
**
按照国家法规和行业规范的规定,美国社会从中学开始就教育培养青少年遵纪守法和防止抄袭剽窃的公民意识。这里是美国中学关于防治抄袭剽窃行为的规定原文:
**
Plagiarism is using someone else's words, thoughts, or ideas and presenting them as if they were the student's own without acknowledging the original source. Appropriate and correct credit must be given to all sources used. Otherwise, the student is misrepresenting himself as the author of the non-cited material to his audience. Questions about citing sources can be answered by the teacher making the assignment or the school librarian. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
**
-- taking material directly from the Internet without citing source;
-- copying material word for word without using quotation marks and citing source;
-- paraphrasing without acknowledging source;
-- bibliography does not include sources used.
(来源附后)。
**
**
对照看,所谓美国博士生毕业的方舟子,却连中学生知识都没有。您说,他那学历学位是真是假?
**
**
**
通过法规规范对照,可以清楚看到,方舟子为其语际剽窃行为搞狡辩,证明他是个厚颜无耻的人。中国大陆一些媒体把那么一个造假严重程度超过任何已处理案情的和厚颜无耻的造假人士、包装成“打假人士”,在社会上张扬和到处插手搞无端指控,且一搞就是十年,那其实是个最大最恶劣的作假案。
**
**
下面是相关法规规范的文字原文:
**
**
**
附件:美国政府颁发的关于抄袭剽窃的联邦法规之定义说明:
**
**
F. Plagiarism
The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
**
来源:
Proposed Scientific Integrity Policy of the Department of the Interior
A Notice by the Interior Department on 08/31/2010
[www.federalregister.gov]
**
**
**

美国联邦政府国家标准局推荐的行业规范关于“自我抄袭剽窃”定义的相关文字原文:
**
[toms.acm.org]
Plagiarism Policy
**
ACM has established a rigorous policy on plagiarism. Manuscripts found to be in violation of this policy will be immediately rejected. Authors of papers found to be in violation after publication face severe penalties. It is important that all authors and co-authors review this policy before submission. Note that this policy also covers the practice of self-plagiarism (i.e., reuse of one's own previously published material without reference to the original source).
**
**
ACM Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism
OCTOBER 2006 (revised June 2010)
[www.acm.org]
**
1. Definition and Context
**
Respecting intellectual property rights is a foundational principle of the ACM's Codes of Ethics[1]. Plagiarism, in which one misrepresents ideas, words, computer codes or other creative expression as one's own, is a clear violation of such ethical principles. Plagiarism can also represent a violation of copyright law, punishable by statute. Plagiarism manifests itself in a variety of forms, including
**
- Verbatim copying, near-verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing portions of another author's paper;
- Copying elements of another author's paper, such as equations or illustrations that are not common knowledge, or copying or purposely paraphrasing sentences without citing the source; and
- Verbatim copying of portions of another author's paper with citing but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied (e.g., not applying quotation marks correctly) and/or not citing the source correctly.
**
Self-plagiarism is a related issue. In this document we define self-plagiarism as the verbatim or near-verbatim reuse of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work without citing the original source[2]. Note that self-plagiarism does not apply to publications based on the author's own previously copyrighted work (e.g., appearing in a conference proceedings) where an explicit reference is made to the prior publication[3]. Such reuse does not require quotation marks to delineate the reused text but does require that the source be cited.
**
All authors are deemed to be individually and collectively responsible for the content of papers published by ACM. Hence, it is the responsibility of each author to ensure that papers submitted to ACM attain the highest ethical standards with respect to plagiarism.
**
**
**
附件:美国中学颁布的关于欺骗行为和抄袭剽窃行为的校规规范相关文字的原文(各中学有自己的条文,但法规规范意义同样):
**
**
Academic Honesty Policy
Allen Middle School
Last updated: 10/27/10
[www.wssd.k12.pa.us]
**
**
Introduction
**
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.”
**
Definitions
**
Cheating
**
All student work should be the original work of the student who submits it. When a student attempts to take unfair advantage by claiming credit for what he did not do on his own, this is cheating. Cheating includes, but is not limited to these examples of academic dishonesty:
-- using unauthorized notes (crib sheet) during a test
-- using unauthorized technology: cell phone, calculator, computer
-- copying a homework assignment
-- allowing another to copy one’s work or test
-- receiving unacknowledged and unauthorized help from parents, tutors, siblings -- or other students
-- talking about a test outside of class in order to gain or give advantage
-- fabricating data
-- looking at another student’s test paper during testing
-- talking during a test
-- collaborating on an assignment without teacher permission
-- turning in the same work for two or more subjects without permission
-- stealing a test key
-- forging a signature, either teacher or parent
-- violation of copyright laws
-- unauthorized use of an on-line translator
**
Plagiarism
**
Plagiarism is using someone else’s words, thoughts, or ideas and presenting them as if they were the student’s own without acknowledging the original source. Appropriate and correct credit must be given to all sources used. Otherwise, the student is misrepresenting himself as the author of the non-cited material to his audience. Questions about citing sources can be answered by the teacher making the assignment or the school librarian. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

-- taking material directly from the Internet without citing source
-- copying material word for word without using quotation marks and citing source
-- paraphrasing without acknowledging source
-- bibliography does not include sources used.
**
Consequences: Staff will fill out the parent contact form each time there is an incident. A copy of the form will be kept in the student’s discipline file. Tracking of the number of offenses will be done through administration via a cumulative folder maintained from the beginning of grade 6 through the end of grade 8.
**
**

# # #    



被编辑2次。最后被zhiyan-le编辑于12/14/2010 09:15AM。

选项: 回复引用
谢谢直言兄收集的材料,已经收录到“抄袭剽窃”专辑 (1788 查看)
发布: 亦明
日期: December 15, 2010 06:00AM

  

选项: 回复引用
方抄袭Science杂志的文章就是一个典型。 (2287 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 09:28AM

  Science编辑部认为他提到了这个工作是美国某个大学的研究机构做的,所以难以认定其抄袭。但事实上,方的抄袭文章根本没有具体指出究竟是哪个大学哪个研究人员做的研究。他把人家的文章整段整段的翻译过来,连续几个段落地翻译过来,却根本没有提到文章的来源(说实话,即使是有来源的引用,也是蹩脚的引用),这是典型的抄袭剽窃。不清楚当时举报方抄袭的人(老肖?)是怎么个举报的,Science编辑部的人应该是不懂中文的,他们是如何判断方的抄袭文章难以认定剽窃的呢?可能是Science编辑部认为方没有剽窃Science原文提到的研究成果(因为毕竟方还是提到了那个研究成果是某个大学做的,而没有明目张胆地当作他方舟子的研究成果),但却忽视了方对原文行文逻辑与词句的抄袭剽窃。

选项: 回复引用
是请懂中文的人把他的文章回译成英文,然后判断的。方法错误。 (2074 查看)
发布: 柯华
日期: December 14, 2010 10:43AM

 当时老肖大概太信服science了,就没有追究下去。

选项: 回复引用
不知道举报信怎么写的. 举报的应该是方肘子抄袭<科学>文章, 不是抄袭普林斯顿研究人员. (2459 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 06:39PM

从<科学>的回信看, 举报信可能没有说的很清楚.

选项: 回复引用
应该是清楚的,但采用的回译的方式不妥当。 (1791 查看)
发布: 柯华
日期: December 15, 2010 04:56AM

 不知老肖当时为什么偃旗息鼓了,应该辩解的。

选项: 回复引用
是不是应该建立一个法规文件专辑?这样的帖子不收集起来,太可惜了 (1999 查看)
发布: 亦明
日期: December 14, 2010 09:19AM

  

选项: 回复引用
应该建立这样一个资料库。 (2104 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 07:08PM

  

选项: 回复引用
应该建立一个“相关法规”栏目,大家都可以上帖,不能跟帖。 (1846 查看)
发布: 柯华
日期: December 14, 2010 10:38AM

  

选项: 回复引用
补充:有些术语没有找到标准翻译,请知道者帮助介绍和做纠正。 (2112 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 09:14AM

  

选项: 回复引用
关于抄袭剽窃、翻译剽窃和自我剽窃等行为,主帖引用之法规都有明确规定。可参考。我认为, (2180 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 09:11AM

关于抄袭剽窃、翻译剽窃和自我剽窃等行为,主帖引用之法规都有明确规定。可参考。我认为,判断指控某人(包括方舟子或任何人),是带有司法指控和法律责任的事情。因此,必须依法办事而不能依照个人意志办事。
**
方某及其背景等一帮人,不怕以个人意志办事(就此,他们甚至占有“话语权”优势),他们害怕的是依法办事。譬如:
**
就“学术不端行为”和“学术打假”(学术腐败)的词语用法,早在2004/2005年,我就跟何某方某那帮人有过争辩:
他们主张用“学术腐败”定义行为和用“学术打假”手段治理,即通过政治宣传审判科技学术和用新闻媒体舆论轰炸指控的手段干预(苏联做法)。无疑,那方面,他们是占“话语权”优势的,--- 请记住,何某于光远就是前中宣部科技处的人,在媒体界有足够势力。
我主张用“学术不端行为”定义和通过法律授权执法部门受理(美国做法)。那一来,无疑,是消浅那帮人用政治宣传手段干预科技学术的“话语权”、有利于科技学术人的学术自由权益安全的法律保障和社会保障。
**
那个争辩冲突,也是那帮人对我恨得要死却又无可奈何的缘故之一。
**
**
对比:在肖方冲突中,诉诸法治和依法办事,肖某总是或大体能占优势(譬如赢得官司);而诉诸个人意志和媒体手段,方某总是或大体占优势(譬如当前的肖某事件)。
请各位仔细斟酌....

选项: 回复引用
你觉得用“学术诚信评议团”这个名称怎么样?多两个字读起来不大顺溜。 (1894 查看)
发布: 柯华
日期: December 14, 2010 10:48AM

  

选项: 回复引用
可以就叫"评议团." (2049 查看)
日期: December 14, 2010 06:54PM

  

选项: 回复引用


对不起,只有注册用户才能发帖。
2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.