公布有关乔方利“破解了世界难题的成果”的评论类研究论文手稿

  作者:万振文

  海洋一所乔方利书记在《科学中国人》2005年12期上发表署名文章“海洋环境预报理论和数值预报模式取得重大突破”(http://pan.baidu.com/s/1dDz2aul),在第一段就自吹“在国际上率先建立了海浪 – 环流耦合理论”、“在国内外迅速引起强烈反响”、“ 该成果属于原始自主创新,处于该领域世界领先水平”。2006年6月11日有媒体报道乔方利破解了世界难题(http://news.sohu.com/20060611/n243670066.shtml)。2009年 我偶然发现这则报道后在《新语丝》化名辛海子提出质疑和善意讽劝,希望他不要吹得太离谱了。乔方利在回应中说,“坦率地讲,作为一名科技工作者,本人并不喜好“重大突破”、“震动”之类的媒体语言。”(XYS20090427)。哀! 难道《科学中国人》2005年12期上的署名文章是别人花钱发的?!

  乔方利何许人也?1999年任副所长,2003年新晋博士,2004年海洋一所在GRL发表了一篇文章,他挂名第一作者。不就是一篇论文嘛,搞点猫腻,发出来 了就偷着乐去呗。你非得整出“破解世界难题”、“震惊中外”的字眼挑战大众的容忍底限。党政干部白天装X辛苦,夜里喝点放松放松,中国老百姓没有什么看不惯的。有时喝高了,说些胡话,吹些狂牛,也没什么了不起。当然,牛皮吹大了,碰到个别忍不住气的,被人呛声总是难免的嘛。呛就呛了呗,你非得唧唧歪歪,纠合那么多小兄弟摆开架势掀起网战,似乎你像少女一样纯洁,被呛了就掉价了似的。

  直话直说,我就是那个忍不住呛他的人。我今年一月给发表其论文的期刊GRL写了一篇评论类论文稿,主编回函(附后)建议我直接向美国地球物理学会属下的学术道德委员会举报。最近该委员会回函告知我如何协助提供进一步的证明材料。

  现将本人评论类论文手稿公布如下:
  在GoogleDrive的链接
  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6HGzHERfPeXYkhDdlRsR3dDSVk/view?usp=sharing
  在百度云的链接
  http://pan.baidu.com/s/1bote6ZH

  GRL主编回函:

  ——– Original Message ——–
  Subject:
  GRL: 2016GL067750
  Date:
  Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:00:03 -0500
  From:
  
  Reply-To:
  
  To:
  
  CC:
  

  Dear Dr. Wan,

  Thank you very much for your submission to GRL. Your submission raises some very important issues, and both GRL and AGU take these issues very seriously.

  I am writing to clarify the distinct roles of the scientific journal and the role of the AGU Ethics process.

  In terms of the scientific content, GRL encourages critiques of published papers in the form of full stand-alone submissions to GRL. By “stand-alone”, we mean a manuscript that would fit as an independent paper in GRL. For example, whereas a Comment would not necessarily have figures, a stand-alone paper would almost certainly be expected to show results. Likewise, a stand-alone manuscript would have the same scientific tone as a GRL paper (rather than the tone of a Comment), and could be reviewed and read as an individual contribution. From what you describe in your submission, it sounds that you may have sufficient material for a stand-alone manuscript. However, the manuscript would need to include considerably more concrete evidence than is included in the current submission. If you agree that you have sufficient material, then my sincere hope is that you are willing to submit a stand-alone manuscript that provides that scientific evidence.

  In terms of the ethical components of your current submission, AGU has a robust Ethics policy, and a robust system for evaluating ethical concerns. These are described on the AGU Ethics website here: http://ethics.agu.org . As is stated on the Ethics website, “Allegations regarding scientific misconduct by AGU members or authors in connection with AGU activities (publications, presentation, and other official duties) must be submitted in writing either directly to the chair of the Ethics Committee or to ethics@agu.org.”

  My request at this stage is that you please consider these two roles (that of the journal and that of the AGU ethics process), and then inform me whether you would like to proceed with a new stand-alone submission to GRL, with an allegation to the AGU Ethics Committee, or with both.

  Thank you very much for your consideration. Again, I, GRL, and AGU all take these issues very seriously.

  Regards,
  Noah

  (国内网友无法阅读新语丝,因此我把相关发帖拷贝到个人文库http://luu-xiahai.hxwk.org/ 里。)

(XYS20160826)

This site is supported by ebookdiy.com.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply