107 papers were withdrawn, the authors complain: nanny sold-child papers, academic fraud, research-IT information
On April 21, the world renowned academic publisher Springer nature publishing group released a statement, the Group of the tumor biology (Tumor Biology) 107 papers published in the journals taken down. ( Click here to understand ) this was taken is issued on behalf of the authors of the paper, all from China, withdrew draft reasons is the author fabricated peer reviewers and peer review comments.
"The continuation of the withdrawal was removed in 2015 drafts. "For soliciting withdrawal events, effects of spring and nature publishing group in greater China President Arnout Jacobs responded. This reporter has learned, withdraw this draft is the journal Cancer Biology using fake peer-reviewed information available in 2015 a draft anti-checked all papers published from 2012 to 2016 in order to discover this "problem" papers.
In August 2015, Springer withdrew its 10 academic journals has 64 Chinese authors of published papers. Being removed papers appear in different authors, different reviewers use the same email, paper submissions and reply comments from someone in a batch operation, and thus confirm the papers do exist, "third parties" in the fraud.
However, after the event, as the publishing world "public enemy" third party intermediary, seems to be the only winner.
"Nanny sold the children"
Starting in 2010, a leading hospital physician lincheng (respondents requested a pseudonym) began posting "long road". But it was not until 2013, his thesis because the language does not pass rejection. Finally, rush project, he was wandering in various hospitals in the end third party sales attracted.
Every day, lincheng visits often encounter people, other than the patient, and looking for "opportunities" third party sales. Unlike in the past, this time, worried he had heart.
"English is not our mother tongue, my knowledge of the English language does not pass, article needs polishing. "Lincheng spent 24,000 yuan, lincheng gave his papers to the third party, the other side not only touches the paper" more like a foreigner ", also promised to help publish.
Lincheng told reporters that in the price lists of third parties, different types of periodicals prices, "high impact factor journal charges higher."
"Lucky" is that lincheng third party article, successfully published in the biological sciences. "Unfortunately" is that the paper became one of the 107 theses this was taken down.
In the interview, lincheng said repeatedly, the qualitative should withdraw draft papers are peer-reviewed fraud, not false papers, different concepts, nature is not equal. "I can assure you that the experimental data in the paper is real. As regards third-party reviewers found papers, fake peer review, I don't know anything about that. "Think about it, lincheng a bit helpless," this is like, his children over to nannies, results surprise, Babysitting my children for sale. ”
However, at present, doctors like lincheng rights difficult. "Cast in paper and paper trade in China there is no clear legal provisions. On paper the sale, now only measures for China's Ministry of education dissertations of instructions for all dissertations. Also, third-party companies are now called science and technology service company, we can't find the punishment basis. "The China Association of science and technology workers morals and rights members of the investigation team of the Special Committee had said in an interview with the China Science News.
"Why don't journal regulation"
Springer Publishing Group investigations, did find, and author of lincheng similar there are many, most of them by "third parties" mediation submission. "The ' third party ' intermediary has unshirkable responsibility for false peer review, is publishing a common ' enemy '. "Arnout Jacobs said.
2015 Chinese papers "to withdraw draft" new year, withdrew draft reasons invariably point to the peer-review process. Besides Springer withdrew draft controversy, in March 2015, modern British Biology Group lifted its 12 journals published 43 articles, 41 of which came from China, withdrew draft on the grounds that finding third party organizations to provide these papers with false peer review services. In October 2015, Elsevier's withdrawal of its 5 9 papers in this journal, papers from universities or research institutions in China, withdrew draft on the grounds that the paper's peer review process was rigged.
But, in and Ann Connaught Jay Exchange Shi, China Association party members, and Member Secretary Wang Chunfa pointed out that, author and "third party" intermediary does exists not shirk of responsibility, but 2015 withdrawal draft event occurred Hou, published group no take active effective measures prevent similar event occurred, published group and journals edit exists internal control mechanism not perfect, and audit checks not strictly, problem, ought to on this bear responsibility.
In this regard, Arnout Jacobs responded in soliciting withdrawal events, publishing group editors do exist for expert information, expert review audit is not strict, and so on.
"Why don't journal regulation, why articles can be sent to a fake email? "Such a problem was puzzled by lincheng.
At present, Springer has been lifted and the periodical concerned cooperation.
107 article is still just "iceberg"
"Although the size of the withdrawn draft, but still just tip of the iceberg, like journals and papers far exceeds the scale of the problem. "Navy Sun Xuejun, a Professor of medicine, second military medical University, told the China Science News reporter," Chinese journals there is no such a problem, certainly not, it is said that ' problems were more serious, just because few people go '. ”
Sun Xuejun, the basic logic behind this phenomenon is, doctor promotion needs paper. "Hospitals have different requirements at different levels, and general hospitals need domestic, large hospital needs core journals, Medical University Hospital, the requirements must be included in SCI. Removed from draft magazine, all of which are included in SCI, author of basic medical college affiliated hospital or hospital doctor. "Sun Xuejun said.
Another well-known hospital experts told reporters: it "is issued on behalf of large-scale withdrawal of things, give us too much thinking. Clinicians need to clinic, patients who require surgery, the need to manage, need to learn communication and have to academic papers. Be certified as a clinical doctor what are the standards? ”
The medical profession calls for discussion of evaluation standards is very hot. "There is a growing emphasis on, doctor's review, not only paper is concerned, is mainly look at the level of skill and practice. "Science, China capital University of medical sciences, Professor Li Yiting told the newspaper.
In recent years, on the question of evaluation of clinical medical personnel, have attracted some attention. On October 12, 2016, the State health and family planning Commission, the State food and Drug Administration five departments jointly issued a circular on promoting health and health guidance of scientific innovation, including, in particular, pointed out that the national science and technology innovation of incentive policies applicable to the health care institutions and their staff, will be implemented in the field of medical and health personnel classification and evaluation standards.
"Health-care system, in particular the evaluation of clinical medical staffs, and prone to problems. Because of the great work they do load, a lot of people coming to see dozens of, hundreds of patients a day. In this case, article to check them again, it's a little difficult. Assessment criteria alone is not practical. "Li Yiting said.
In addition to quantitative evaluation, microbial Huang Li, a researcher at Chinese Academy of Sciences, the evaluation system should follow the principles of classification and evaluation, peer, in complete control-related data, including data on the basis of peer can also be judged.
107篇论文被撤，作者诉苦：保姆把孩子卖了 - 论文,学术造假,科研 - IT资讯
4月21日，世界著名学术出版机构施普林格自然出版集团发布声明，该集团旗下《肿瘤生物学》（Tumor Biology）期刊撤下所刊登的107篇论文。（点此了解）此次被撤稿论文的作者全部来自中国，撤稿原因是论文作者编造审稿人和同行评审意见。
“此次撤稿事件是2015年撤稿事件的延续。”针对撤稿事件，施普林格·自然出版集团大中华区总裁安诺杰回应。记者了解到，此次撤稿是《肿瘤生物学》杂志利用2015年撤稿事件掌握的虚假同行评审信息反查了2012年至2016年发表的所有论文，从而发现这批“问题”论文。
2015年8月，施普林格撤回旗下10个学术期刊已发表的64篇中国作者的论文。被撤论文中出现了不同作者、不同评审人使用相同电子邮箱的情况，论文投稿和回复评审意见是有人在批量操作，并由此确认确实存在论文发表的“第三方”在弄虚作假。
不过，事件发生之后，作为出版界“公敌”的第三方中介，似乎成了唯一的赢家。
“保姆把孩子卖了”
从2010年起，某知名医院医师林诚（应受访者要求化名）就开始了投稿的“长征路”。但是一直到2013年，他的论文还是因为语言不过关被拒稿了。终于，着急申请项目的他，最终还是被游走在各个医院的第三方机构业务员吸引住了。
每天，林诚在出诊时经常会遇到的人，除了病人之外，还有四处寻找“商机”的论文第三方机构业务员。与以往不同，这一次，心急如焚的他动了心。
“英文不是我们的母语，我的英文功底不过关，论文需要润色。”于是林诚花了2.4万元，林诚把自己的论文交给了第三方，对方不仅把论文润色得“更像外国人写的了”，还承诺可以帮助发表。
林诚告诉记者，在第三方的价目表上，不同类型的期刊价格不同，“影响因子高的杂志收费更高”。
“幸运”的是，林诚交给第三方的那篇论文，成功发表在《肿瘤生物学》上。“不幸”的是，这篇论文也成了此次被撤下的107篇论文之一。
采访中，林诚再三表示，此次撤稿论文事件定性应该是同行评议造假，不是论文造假，概念不同，性质更不能等同。“我可以保证，论文中的实验数据是真实的。至于第三方找到的论文评审专家，伪造同行评议，这个我完全不知情。”想想这件事，林诚有点无奈，“这就如同，将自己的‘孩子’交给了保姆，结果没有想到，保姆把我的‘孩子’卖了。”
不过，目前，像林诚这样的医生想维权很难。“在论文代投和论文买卖方面，中国目前没有明确法律规定。关于论文买卖，现在只有中国教育部的学位论文管理办法中有相关说明，但指的都是学位论文。而且，现在第三方公司都是叫作科技服务公司，我们找不到处罚依据。”中国科协科技工作者道德与权益专门委员会调查组成员曾在接受《中国科学报》采访时说。
“期刊为什么不监管”
施普林格出版集团调查后，确实发现，与林诚类似的作者有不少，他们大多是通过“第三方”中介投稿。“‘第三方’中介对虚假同行评审具有不可推卸的责任，是出版界共同的‘敌人’。”安诺杰说。
2015年可谓中国论文“撤稿”大年，撤稿原因不约而同地指向同行评议环节。除了施普林格撤稿风波之外，2015年3月，英国现代生物出版集团宣布撤销旗下12种期刊43篇论文，其中41篇来自中国，撤稿理由是发现第三方机构有组织地为这些论文提供了虚假同行评审服务。2015年10月，爱思唯尔撤销旗下5本杂志中的9篇论文，论文全部来自中国高校或研究机构，撤稿理由是论文的同行评审过程被人为操纵。
不过，在与安诺杰交流时，中国科协党组成员、书记处书记王春法指出，作者和“第三方”中介确实存在不可推卸的责任，但2015年撤稿事件发生后，出版集团没有采取积极有效措施防止类似事件发生，出版集团和期刊编辑存在内控机制不完善、审核把关不严格等问题，理应对此承担责任。
对此，安诺杰回应，在撤稿事件中，出版集团确实存在期刊编辑对评审专家信息、评审专家评审意见审核不严格等问题。
“期刊为什么不监管，为什么文章能发到假的邮箱里？”这样的问题让林诚困惑不已。
目前，施普林格已经解除与涉事期刊的合作。
107篇依然只是“冰山一角”
“虽然此次撤稿规模大，但仍只是冰山一角，存在类似问题的期刊和论文远远超过这个规模。”第二军医大学海军医学系教授孙学军告诉《中国科学报》记者，“难道中文期刊就不存在这样的问题，肯定不是，有人说‘问题更严重，只是因为少有人去追究’。”
在孙学军看来，产生这种现象背后的基本逻辑是，医生晋升需要论文。“不同级别的医院有不同的要求，普通医院需要国内期刊，比较大的医院需要核心期刊，一些医科大学附属医院，则要求必须是SCI收录。被撤稿的杂志，全部都是SCI收录的，作者基本都是医科大学附属医院或三甲医院的医生。”孙学军说。
另一名知名三甲医院的专家也向记者感慨：“大规模撤稿的事情，带给我们太多的思考。临床医生需要门诊、需要手术、需要管理病人，需要进修学习交流，还得发学术论文。考核一个临床医生的标准到底是什么？”
目前医学界评价标准方面的讨论呼声很热。“人们越来越强调，对医生的评审，不能唯论文而论，主要还是看医术和实践水平。”首都医科大学教授李义庭告诉《中国科学报》记者。
近几年，关于临床医务人员的评价问题，已经引起了一些重视。2016年10月12日，国家卫生和计划生育委员会、国家食品药品监督管理总局等五部门联合发布了《关于全面推进卫生与健康科技创新的指导意见》，其中特别指出国家科技创新的各项激励政策适用于卫生机构及其人员，将在医疗卫生健康领域实行人才分类评价标准。
“医务系统特别是临床医务人员的评价，容易出现问题。因为他们确实工作负荷很大，很多人一天就要看几十、上百个病人。在这种情况下，再用文章去考核他们，确实有点强人所难。这样的评审标准本身就不符合实际。”李义庭说。
除了定量评价外，在中科院微生物所研究员黄力看来，评价体系应遵循分类评价、同行评议的原则，在全面掌握相关数据，包括论文数据的基础上，同行也可以作出评判。