与其国内报导都在蒋是否有挂名这件事上钻牛角尖 这篇ScienceInsider的报导倒是比较详细的描述整件事的来龙去脉 全文请见网址：http://ppt.cc/wHjC 以下为内文摘录及简单翻译，若有误请指正： Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal 松散的审查程序造成SAGE旗下期刊撤回60篇论文 “An author (later confirmed to be an innocent party) contacted SAGE after receiving two suspicious e-mails from individuals related to a paper he had submitted to JVC.”The senders claimed to be university-based scientists but were using Google Gmail accounts. By directly contacting the scientists via their official university e-mail accounts, SAGE investigators discovered that the identity of at least one of the scientists had been stolen—that researcher did not have a Gmail account. (SAGE is not revealing the names of the people involved.) 一位投稿者联络SAGE，收到两封来自个人的可疑email，投稿者质疑在大专院校任职的 学者怎麽会使用Gmail做为联络帐号？SAGE直接透过官方的学校email联络学者，发现 有一位以上的学者被窃取了身份，且这些学者并未使用Gmail帐号 (SAGE没有公布被窃取 身份的学者名单)。 (这里解答了一个问题：CY Chen并非无中生有开分身，而是冒名该领域其他学者，并填上 自己申请的不同Gmail帐号，JVC才会同意以这些人做为reviewer) Over the rest of 2013, SAGE investigators quietly followed the trail. They discovered that the assumed identity and Gmail accounts had been used many other times in ScholarOne, SAGE’s online manuscript submission system, and the reviewers and co-authors for those papers were also attached to suspicious e-mail addresses. Sherman says. “We also checked the wording of reviews written by those individuals, as well as the time it took to complete the review,” he says, which in some cases amounted to “a few minutes.” SAGE在他们的线上投稿系统，同样发现了一些论文的reviewers和co-authors使用这些 可疑的email帐号做为联络，并且发现有些由这些帐号所发出的审查意见甚至在几分钟内 就回覆。 (CY Chen只能说偷吃也不擦乾净嘴巴，几分钟就送回审查意见不就表示连论文内容都没看) By the end of the year, the investigators had a list of 130 e-mail addresses associated with 60 papers, with one scientist as co-author on all of them: Chen-Yuan Chen of NPUE, who goes by “Peter.” When SAGE sent an e-mail to all 130 e-mail addresses requesting that the authors confirm their identity, none responded. “The authors were contacted again by SAGE in May 2014 to inform them that their papers would be retracted in the July 2014 issue,” says Sherman, but again none responded. According to SAGE’s official statement, Chen resigned from NPUE in February. Neither Chen nor officials at NPUE responded to e-mails from ScienceInsider. 调查团队列出了130个可疑的email与60篇论文相关，并指向了一位学者在所有文章中 都列为共同作者：在台湾屏教大任职的CY Chen。当SAGE email给这130个帐号确认身份， 没有得到任何回音，接着SAGE又在2014五月告诉这些帐号说他们投稿的论文将被撤回， 依然没有得到任何回音。Chen已在二月辞职，截至目前为止，ScienceInsider email给 Chen和屏教大都没有得到回覆。 How was it possible for a scientist to become the sole reviewer on dozens of his own papers? The answer appears to be that Chen was allowed to nominate his own reviewers, who were not vetted by JVC. 整件事情会发生是因为Chen可以自我推荐审稿人，且没有经过JVC把关。 “It is a very common practice across the industry for peer-reviewed journals to allow authors to nominate suggested reviewers. … Editors often find the recommendations helpful, especially for submissions on specialized and niche areas of research.” 让投稿者自我推荐审稿人是一个十分常见的程序，尤其是在一些较为冷僻的领域，编辑 通常会认为这样的推荐是很有帮助的。 The lack of vetting, however, meant that JVC violated SAGE’s editorial guidelines, Sherman says. (Like SAGE, the editorial policy at Science is to allow authors to recommend reviewers but to never rely solely upon them. 但JVC毫无把关的行为显然违反了SAGE的编审规范，虽然允许作者自行推荐审稿人，但 不应该完全依赖作者自己的推荐。 Nayfeh has resigned as editor of JVC, which is now being run by a group of 30 editors, most of whom were associate or advisory editors. Nayfeh did not respond to e-mails. The secretary of his university department told Science that he had moved to Jordan. 主编Nayfeh已经辞去了JVC的职务，也并未回覆ScienceInsider的email，Nayfeh任教 学校的秘书说他已经搬去约旦了。 (最後一段有点好笑，感觉主编Nayfeh逃之夭夭) -- ※ 文章网址: http://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/AfterPhD/M.1405332412.A.7BD.html ※ 编辑: flashegg (118.169.210.110), 07/14/2014 18:12:01