当代韩学愈――高档次国际学术期刊“论文”速成法

  ・方舟子・

  钱钟书在《围城》里刻画过一个学术骗子韩学愈,他比方鸿渐高明的地方是,除了同样买了克莱登大学文凭,还有“著作散见美国《史学杂志》《星期六文学评论》等大刊物中”,因此当上了系主任。其实他在这些大刊物发表的“著作”,不过是在广告栏、通信栏登小广告。

  现在国内科技界讲究在国际学术期刊发论文,尤其是在高档次的国际学术期刊发论文,更是评职称、选院士、报成果的资本。但能在这些期刊上发论文毕竟不容易,不知是受韩学愈启发,还是英雄所见略同,有些科研人员想到了一个发“高档次论文”的速成方法:给这些期刊写读者来信,评论该期刊新发表的某篇论文,或者反映中国的情况,登出来了也就相当于在该期刊发了论文。较早这么干的是中国工程院院士、第四军医大学前校长樊代明(就是现在到处说“医学不是科学”、中医强于西医的那位院士),给《柳叶刀》《美国医学会杂志》之类的顶尖医学期刊写读者来信,就成了自己的学术成果。这个窍门被发现了,中国医学界掀起了向樊院士学习、给国外著名医学期刊写读者来信的高潮。新语丝几年前就揭露过这种现象。

  这些当代韩学愈当然不限于医学界。其他领域的科研人员又不是傻子,怎会想不到这么个高招,想不到也可以学嘛。将这个高招发挥到极致的是哈尔滨工业大学管理学院教授苗鑫,他在其“近三年主要学术论文”中列了七篇发在英国《自然》(Nature)、一篇发在美国《科学》(Science)上的“论文”(http://som.hit.edu.cn/html/teacher/AB0JYMSF7F4FUR.html ):

  [1] Miao X. China emissions: stop subsidizing emitters. Nature, 2015, 527(7576): 38-38. (SCI,WOS: 000364270700020, IF: 41.456)
  [2] Miao X. China Nobel stirs up attack on academies. Nature, 2015, 526(7575): 640-640. (SCI,WOS: 000363832100018, IF: 41.456)
  [3] Miao X, Tang Y, Wong CWY. Polluters migrate to China’s poor areas. Nature, 2015, 518(7540): 483-483. (SCI, WOS: 000350097300020, IF: 41.456)
  [5] Miao X. Renewables: can harm environment. Nature, 2014, 514(7521): 168-168. (SCI, WOS: 000342663100020, IF: 41.456)
  [6] Miao X, Wong CWY. China is closing its rural education gap. Nature, 2014, 511(7509): 292-292. (SCI, WOS: 000338992200017, IF: 41.456)
  [7] Tang Y, Miao X. Uphold China’s plan for cleaning water. Nature, 2014, 512(7515): 371-371. (SCI, WOS: 000340840600012, IF: 41.456)
  [8] Tang Y, Miao X. Shift aims of China’s poorer universities. Nature, 2014, 505(7483): 291-291. (SCI, WOS: 000329621800018, IF: 41.456)
  [9] Miao X. Science ethics: Young scientists speak. Science, 2014, 345(6192): 27-27. (SCI, WOS: 000338284400030, IF: 33.611)

  短短两年(2014-2015)就在《自然》《科学》这两个公认最顶级的科学学术期刊上发了八篇学术论文,称得上全世界第一了,还在每篇“论文”后列出该刊的影响因子,要吓死资金评审人和学生的。然而仔细一看,怎么这些“论文”全都只有一页的篇幅?如果不像高校长那样韩学愈说什么就信了,去查一下原文,就会发现这些“论文”其实连一页篇幅都没有,就是一两百字的豆腐块评论、读者来信,主要是反映中国问题。比如其发在《科学》上的那篇“论文”全文如下:

  My field is computer security. I use techniques aimed at detecting malicious attacks on computer systems, and I need to operate in the twilight zone between good and bad. Research on new intrusion detection algorithms is often at best questionable and at worst invalid, given that the results cannot be verified under realistic conditions. Testing under realistic scenarios is problematic, because the results are not repeatable. Furthermore, testing on real data requires high-security vetting and may produce confidential results that are not publishable. Security technologies may also have dual-use possibilities. Security researchers may, for example, detect new system vulnerabilities during their research, and may end up in ethical dilemmas: Shall I be good and publish these results or shall I sell them at the highest price to the gray market of government agencies and others that capitalize on vulnerabilities? And then you have privacy: These technologies can be used both for the good― protecting security of citizens―and bad―creating an Orwellian surveillance society.

  这篇“论文”的标题叫《科学道德:年轻科学家们发声》(其实是《科学》关于科学问题的读者来信选登)。原来苗教授也知道什么叫“科学道德”。

  苗教授是:“香江学者,哈尔滨工业大学青年拔尖人才选聘计划入选者。负责国家级与省部级科研项目十余项,发表学术论文四十余篇,其中作为第一作者或通讯作者的SCI、SSCI论文二十余篇。”

  不知他的这些《自然》《科学》“学术论文”为其获得这些荣誉、科研项目,发挥了多大的作用?请其领导查查。如果其领导是樊代明那样的,那就别查了,互相欣赏去吧。

  2016.6.2.

(XYS20160605)

This site is supported by ebookdiy.com.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply