s********n
发帖数: 26222 | 1 每经记者 黄志伟 发自北京
打假专家方舟子自己也曾屡次受到“抄袭”等质疑。上周，美国密歇根州立大学生
物学教授罗伯特·伯恩斯坦发表了一封致方舟子的公开信，让这一事件再次升温。
在公开信中，伯恩斯坦教授指责方舟子的《科学是什么》引文抄袭了他的《论界定
科学理论》一文有关内容，并且要求方舟子就此事致歉。
昨日（8月8日），方舟子针对此事接受《每日经济新闻》采访时否认了抄袭的指控
，称在引述时曾注明信息来源，并非剽窃。
方舟子称原作者被误导
今年3月份，方舟子陷入了剽窃风波。指责者称他的《科学是什么》一文在很大程
度上是伯恩斯坦著作有关内容的中文翻译，不仅大量引用相关内容，且很多论点的结构
和相关内容都与伯恩斯坦原文惊人地一致，但是并未在文章中注明来源和出处，此种行
为属于剽窃。
对于由此陷入的剽窃风波，方舟子回复称他在出版著作中已经注明内容出处。而在
当时，伯恩斯坦并未对方舟子的行为是否算作剽窃进行认定。不过到了上周，他发表了
公开信，认定方舟子的行为属于剽窃。
在公开信中，伯恩斯坦声称，在美国，如果未获得版权拥有者的同意，即使适当归
功于人，从同源作品中引用文字仍然不能超过250字。在中国作者不能引用超过3%的内
容，而如果抄袭超过了25%，就会被剥夺学位。此外，即使原文指明了出处，但假如所
涉及论点与例证有独特性且占据涉嫌作品的很大一部分时，也可能被视为抄袭。
而根据方舟子发表文章的相关内容，他认为方舟子的文章和自己的著作采用了同样
的论述结构，循着同样的逻辑顺序并使用了同样的例证，因此他认定方舟子抄袭了他的
著作，并要求方舟子致歉。
对此方舟子表示，针对他的指控完全是有关人士恶意扭曲的结果，他们将自己的文
章进行不符合实际的翻译和扭曲，造成伯恩斯坦受到了错误的引导。方舟子解释称，自
己于1995年写成《科学是什么》一文，并引用了伯恩斯坦的论点，由于属于网络作品，
他未注明相关内容的出处，但也未将此观点归为己有，而是称此为科学界的共识。
此后方曾先后出版过两次文集，这篇文章都被收录其中，同时在文章中明确注明内
容引自伯恩斯坦的著作。方舟子特别表示，伯恩斯坦已注意到他的公开信发表后，针对
方舟子及其导师博顿教授的个人攻击增加，为此他有意收回抄袭的认定。不过，对于这
个最有利的证据，方舟子表示未得到伯恩斯坦许可，自己不便公开。
美国导师力挺方舟子
方舟子还表示，即使伯恩斯坦教授的指责属实，这一指控也算不上是剽窃行为，而
应归于侵权的范畴，属于经济方面的纠纷。
对此著作版权法方面的专家游云庭律师表示，剽窃不能说是很完全的法律概念。他
不太了解美国的法律，但是，在中国没有明确的法律条文规定内容引用超过3%就构成著
作权侵权。在中国引用不注明出处是非常明显地侵犯了著作权的做法；而如果注明了相
关出处则属于规范、合理的引用，在中国的法律上并不构成侵犯著作权。
方舟子同时还在其官方博客和微博上公布了自己的导师博顿教授的公开信，以此作
为佐证。
博顿教授在公开信中力挺方舟子，并盛赞方舟子的学术水平，称方在实验室里完成
了优质的论文，并且在《生物化学杂志》上发表了高质量的论文，也经受住了时间的考
验。博顿称未看出伯恩斯坦的指控有其合理之处，且方舟子对此已进行了合理而审慎的
回应。
如需转载请与《每日经济新闻》报社联系。未经《每日经济新闻》报社授权，严禁转载
或镜像，违者必究。
版权合作及网站合作电话：021-60900099转688
读者热线：4008890008
每经订报电话
北京：010-58528501 上海：021-61283003 深圳：0755-83520159 成都：028
-86516389 028-86740011 无锡：15152247316 广州：020-89660257
U.S. public to demand an apology counterfeiting expert, Professor Fang
denied plagiarism
Posted:August 9,2011 Views:2 Bookmark and Share
Huang Zhiwei each from Beijing by Reporters
Fang counterfeiting experts have repeatedly been his 'plagiarism' and
questioned last week, Michigan State University biology professor Robert
Bernstein published an open letter addressed Fang, so this event is heating
up again.
In the open letter, Professor Bernstein accused Fang <>
citations copy of his <> a text
about the content, and asked Fang to apologize on the matter.
Yesterday (August 8, Fang received for this <> interview, denied
the allegations of plagiarism, had stated that the quoted source of
information, not plagiarism.
Fang said the original author has been misled
In March of this year, Fang caught plagiarism controversy. Accusers said he
<> a text book is largely about content Bernstein Chinese
translation, not only a large number of references relevant content, and
many of the arguments of structure and related content are remarkably
consistent with Bernstein's original, but did not indicate the source and
the source of the article, such acts are plagiarismhttp://www.f-paper.com/.
For this fall into the plagiarism controversy, Fang, responded that his
writings have been published indicate the contents of the source, while at
the time, Bernstein did not count as plagiarism Fang's behavior to identify,
but to the last week, he published an open letter, the behavior is
determined Fang plagiarism.
In the open letter, Bernstein claimed that in the United States, if not the
copyright owner's consent, even if properly attributed to people from
cognate piece with the text still does not exceed 250 words in Chinese
authors can not refer to more than 3% of the content , and if copying more
than 25 percent, will be deprived of degree. In addition, even pointing out
the original source, but if there are involved in the arguments and examples
of unique and occupy a large part of the work when suspected, may be
regarded as plagiarism.
According to the published article related content Fang, Fang of the article
and he thinks his book with a discussion of the same structure, follow the
same logical sequence and use the same example, so he found a copy of his
book Fang , apologized and asked Fang.
This Fang said the allegations against him is completely distorted the
results of malicious people, they will own the articles that are not in the
actual translation and distortion caused by the wrong Bernstein guide. Fang
explained that he was written in 1995, <> a text, and
quoted Bernstein's argument, as part of the network works, he did not state
the content of the source, but not this view into his own, but that This is
the consensus of the scientific community.
Since then the two sides have successively published anthology, this article
have been included which, while clearly indicate the contents of the
article cited in Bernstein's book. Fang expressed particular, Bernstein has
noted his open letter was published for Professor Fang and his mentor Burton
's personal attacks increase, for which he intends to recover the
identification of plagiarism, but for the most favorable evidence, Fang said
Bernstein did not get permission, they inconvenience the public(Finance
News http://www.f-paper.com/).
Fang mentor behind the United States
Fang also said that even if Professor Bernstein's accusations are true, this
allegation is not really plagiarism, but should be attributed to the scope
of infringement, an economic disputes.
This copyright law expert, said lawyers youyunting, plagiarism can not say
that it is completely legal concept. He did not quite understand the laws of
the United States, but in China there is no clear legal provisions cited
more than 3% of the content constitutes copyright infringement. reference
does not indicate the source in China is very clearly a violation of
copyright practice, and if the source belongs to the relevant state
standards, a reasonable reference, in China's legal does not constitute
copyright infringement.
Fang while still in its official blog and microblogging released on his own
mentor, Professor Burton's open letter as evidence.
Professor Burton behind in an open letter Fang, Fang and praised the
academic standards, said the party in the laboratory to complete a high-
quality paper, and <> published a high-
quality papers, but also to withstand live test of time. Burton said the
allegations did not see that Bernstein has a rational point, and Fang have
been carried out reasonable and prudent response. |
|
