关于学术论文的文献引用及相关的科研道德问题（清华大学内部文献）(页 1) - 科研心路

考研论坛 » 科研心路 » 关于学术论文的文献引用及相关的科研道德问题（清华大学内部文献）

2007-7-21 21:51 土纸

您所查看的帖子来源于考研论坛(bbs.kaoyan.com) 关于学术论文的文献引用及相关的科研道德问题（清华大学内部文献）

[size=2]何毓琦（哈佛大学终身教授，两院外籍院士）f4Hx$f3FfLj2jJ

曹希仁、严厚民、管晓宏、陆宝森、龚维博
aDWuW~
清华大学自动化系智能与网络化系统研究中心讲席教授组&m n G{-Q{-I y4rC
Xl ^7cdL

充分尊重他人成果是科学研究和文学创作中最重要的原则之一。对于一个科学工作者而言，其学术上的贡献得到同行认可至关重要。违反这个基本原则将导致严重后果。最极端的例子就是剽窃：作者将他人成果据为己有。在国际学术界，剽窃行为一旦被发现，惩罚非常严厉。哈佛大学校方每年都会颁发相关文件给所有新生，指导他们如何规范论文写作、恰当引用文献和尊重他人成果。由于东西方文化的差异，某些不规范或模棱两可的做法在国际学术界可能会产生严重误解，甚至可能被认为是变相剽窃。为此，我们愿意和同行们讨论关于文献引用以及相关的科研道德问题。f[`$RL"YV `B
R3KT$I6F}(k[!P
1. 如果一个作者引用了他人的结果，按常规应该明确标明结果的出处。将他人论文成章、成段改头换面，而仅仅提供一个简单的文献索引号“见[xx]”是远远不够的。无论有意或无意，这样的做法会给人一个印象：该段文字和构想是作者自己的，所引用的论文及引文作者的贡献并不太重要。原则上除非作者有新见解，一般不在公开发表的论文中报告自己的"学习体会" 。退一步讲，即使报告自己的"学习体会，作者也应该明确表明引文作者的贡献。虽然作者可以辩称并没有剽窃他人的成果，因为作者已经在文章中给出了相关的参考文献，但是，这种做法同样会给作者带来很坏的影响，长远来看，得不偿失。须知世界非常之小，审稿人极有可能就是被作者冒犯的引文作者。k\z:d+W$d_

2. 如果作者想鸣谢论文写作过程中有帮助的人，应该恰当和真诚。千万不要给人的印象是被致谢者本人同意作者在论文中的所有观点和论述。这种行为在东方可能是尊敬和礼貌，但在国际学术界的印象可能适得其反。国际期刊上经常可以看到作者文责自负的声明，表明被致谢者不承担论文中的任何错误和责任。5d"c&c+\'[g9Wd
:v E6kB`s&S
3. 要特别尊重别人未发表的文章初稿、原创思想和粗略想法。已经发表的文章可以不经过原作者的授权而与他人传阅，但应该特别小心对待同事为了在有限范围内讨论而拿出来的论文初稿、原创思想和粗略想法，未经原作者许可，不应随意散布或使用他人的Powerpoint文档或胶片。这是因为Powerpoint文档或胶片一般没有详细说明和解释。原作者可能不愿意看到自己观点被曲解。另一方面，制作一套好的Powerpoint文档或胶片是一件非常费时的工作。未经同意使用别人的Powerpoint文档是不尊重他人成果的表现，也侵犯了别人的知识产权。本文第一作者曾精心准备了一个大会的主题报告，报告一项美国政府资助的项目所取得的成果，得到了与会者的好评。听众中包括该项目的政府部门主管人，掌握着该项目经费的生杀大权，但是他仍然写信给报告者，请求使用报告胶片文件，并承诺在使用时将成果归功于报告人。这件事情也说明了东西方文化的差异，在西方文化中，父母借用孩子的东西通常要征得孩子的同意，而东方文化却没有这样的习惯。我们认为，尊重他人没有发表的成果和思想应该成为科学工作者共同遵守的规范和共识，否则，学术交流将会受到严重影响。7TT+V*KfpP:W

4. 同有贡献的合作者分享成果和荣誉是科研工作者的优良风范。在合作者的贡献程度不太好划分的情况下，可能有些合作者得到了不太名副其实的荣誉而使作者感到不平衡。但长远来看，只要作者的能力在，就可能做出更出色的成果。打一个比喻，如果某人与他人共享诺贝尔奖，没有人会说他是半个诺贝尔奖获得者。慷慨地分享荣誉很大程度上可以避免同事间不必要的争执和纠纷。

5. 科技论文的作者在享受成果和荣誉的同时也承担责任。严谨的科学工作者并不会无原则地分享成果和荣誉。我们认为，要成为一篇论文的合作者，必须要对论文的思想或写作有实质性的贡献。实际上，许多著名学者很后悔成为某一些论文的作者，因为只要你的名字出现论文的作者中，你就将对整篇文章负全部责任。当导师和研究生合作的论文出了问题时，导师无论怎样辩白不知情都是.L1PE5wA`
十分无力的。#Y+q'YKwt_X
-AQ;N rBG
6. 科技论文作者的署名顺序取决于领域和学会的惯例。例如，在医学界，署名顺序多根据作者的资历，第一作者多是实验室主任或课题负责人，最后一名作者往往是资历最浅但具体做工作最多的人。大多数情况下，第一作者是提出原创思想或贡献最多的人。在有些领域，署名顺序根据作者姓氏确定。我们建议按照作者的贡献，确定署名顺序，因为这样比较公平，也是IEEE的惯例。多数情况下，作者们都能找到大家满意的方案。如果出现争议，我们的建议仍然是慷慨分享成果和荣誉，因为长期而言，某一篇论文的署名顺序并不十分重要。:u3DM!i ]0Rg-G%`
5q.n"e3G%?j

以下为英文版：E Lm2zr]u
8d/O(Komc5sE$E{3`
On Citing References, Sharing Ideas, and Giving Credit When Writing a Paper or %Y ~;|~v N%U
Reportsy)CP6GjB$i
7^7EURrv7V)Y
Yu-Chi Ho, Xiren Cao, Houmin Yan, Xiaohong Guan, Peter Luh, WeiBo Gong
4ZE5W[HB
Center for Intelligent and Network Systems, Tsinghua University, China#U%m(M,e(\s6F]
!B4V,O,|J!Vv
In scientific and literary writings it is most important "to give credit where credit is due." After all this is what an author lives on and the only currency in scholarly endeavor. Violation of this basic dictum can result in severe consequences. The most extreme example is plagiarism where one author steals material from another and claims to be his/her own. When discovered, the punishment is very harsh at least in the West. However, there are lesser forms of "plagiarism" or "not giving credit where it is due" and other authoring transgressions that are due to cultural difference between East and West that can results in misunderstanding and bad feelings. All entering freshman at Harvard University are given a document instructing them on the etiquette of writing a paper, proper citing of reference, and giving attribution. In order to have free sharing of ideas and at the same time respect for the intellectual property right of scholars, some basic common understanding need to be understood among all persons participating in scholarly discussion and dissemination of ideas5?2C4wh$te\c1s

1. If one is reporting the results of another or things he learned from another, then it is customary to EXPLICITLY acknowledge the source. It is NOT sufficient to write a couple of paragraphs of text, which are basically rephrasing of other people's words and providing a simple numbered reference, such as [xx]. This creates the impression, intentional or unintentional, that the words and idea are the author's own creation and the referenced author is only of minor importance. Furthermore, in general one does not report ones own "learning experience" in a paper submitted for publication consideration unless you are providing NEW significant insights. Even then, you should explicitly acknowledge the priority of the ideas of other. Although by giving a numbered reference, you can argue you are not plagiarizing, it will nevertheless reflect badly on you. A knowledgeable reviewer of your paper will not let you get away with it. The offended author, most probably who will also the reviewer of your paper, will not forgive you. The long-term consequences of such practice are much worse than any temporary benefit one may derive from such an act.

2. If you wish to thank someone who has helped you in the writing or development your paper, then thank him properly and sincerely. Never thank a person by giving the impression that s/he has personally approved your paper. This may be a sign of respect in the East. But it is bad form. Thus, one often sees at the end of acknowledgement an additional phrase ". . . all remaining errors are solely the responsibility of the author." One should not be made to take responsibility for a paper unless his/her name appears as one of the authors.

3. One more thing. It is important to treat other people's idea and intellectual property with respect and care. A published paper can be freely passed around and shared without authorization from the original author. After all, a published paper is in the public domain. But a draft or rough ideas a colleague shared with you for comment and discussion within a limited circle should be treated with care. In particular, a PowerPoint document or transparency slides should not be distributed or used without checking with the original author. This is important because a transparency or a PowerPoint slide does not have the accompanying voice that goes with the slide to provide the detail explanation. No self-respecting author would like these used or quoted out of context. Also the creation of a good PowerPoint slide is very time consuming task. To appropriate such a slide for personal use without attribution is a violation of intellectual property right of others. Here is an example. One of us, Ho, had a carefully prepared slide from a plenary address that many people liked including a government contract monitor who holds the power of money (literally the power of life-or-death) over the project. Yet he wrote Ho asking for specific permission to use the slide for his purpose and promised to give full attribution to Ho when using it. This is like a parent in the Eastern cultures asking permission from his/her child to borrow something the child has created. (Note: It is unthinkable in the East that a parent needs to ask permission from a child to use +rC-lOI(J^p1_ f,E
something a child has created. But this is standard practice in the West.)More importantly, if scientific workers cannot be assured of this implicit understanding among colleagues, free discussion will be stifled and progress will be significantly slowed.
u3A9SiL.j
4. We advise that authors be generous to collaborators who indeed make contributions. It is our opinion that it is always a good practice to share credits even though you may honestly think that the other person does not deserve it when the contributions among collaborators are not clear-cut and it is hard to judge the fairness accurately. Look at it this way, in the short run you may think you have giving away something. But in the long run, if you have staying power you will write far more on the subject than your co-author or person whom you have acknowledged. If you share !h%c{0`!K)o Y0En%b
a Nobel Prize with someone, you are still a Nobel Laureate and not a half Nobel Laureate. Besides, sharing credit generously will result in far less arguments and bad feelings with your colleagues. Your generosity may even be repaid someday surprisingly when you least expect it. One of us said it well "A friend is much more important than a paper. In particular, you should never offend any person by not giving his/her enough credit" :d$y$a;o'e*ugvo)AZm

5. People with integrity and principle will always tell you if they feel they don't deserve sharing credit with you on something. It is our own principle that we have to materially contribute to a paper in ideas or in writing before our names should go on as the co-author of a paper. Many well known scholars have lived to regret that their names appeared on a paper which later on turned out to be falsified by their co-author.
+j+ZC?;j/{vb
6. Finally, note in co-authored papers, the order of the name of authors is dependent on the custom of the profession. For example, in medical papers, the name order is often determined by seniority with the name of the head of the laboratory or project appearing first while the last named author is the most junior but who may have done most of the detailed work. In other cases, the first named author is the one who had the original idea or contributed most to the paper. In still other cases, alphabetical orders are used. Our practice has been sequencing the authors based on contributions. This is fair, and has been the practice for IEEE in general. In most cases, the authors should be able to come to a mutually satisfactory answer. In case of dispute, our own recommendation is it never hurts to be generous in sharing credit this way. Life is too short for one to worry much about this order nor is it important in the long run.[/size]/e%lJ/vLVB0Q(\

[[i] 本帖最后由土纸于 2007-7-21 21:52 编辑 [/i]]

转载请注明出自bbs.kaoyan.com,本贴地址:http://bbs.kaoyan.com/viewthread.php?tid=1961697

页: [1]

查看完整版本: 关于学术论文的文献引用及相关的科研道德问题（清华大学内部文献）