s********n
发帖数: 26222 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: smokinggun (硝烟), 信区: Military
标 题: Berstein8月21日给方舟子的公开信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 25 12:01:26 2011, 美东)
21 August 2011
Dear Dr. Fang,
What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I
insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the
first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have
written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not
participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference
does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and
reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to
participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and
copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have
the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been
attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back
this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do
as you like. You don't play by anyone's rules but your own anyway?
You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90%
of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50
%. Well, there's a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your
entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of
your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as
to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to
blame as anyone.
In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article
appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (
email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine
at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone, including you, agrees that a
substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes
how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient
commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in
your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny
both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a
public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs
to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against
you.
You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and
copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this
question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and
copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal
and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points,
all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect
to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide
by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such
set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU
not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to
use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own
illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not
only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work!
This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence,
which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on
my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in
which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my
material?
Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an
expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my
copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making
that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the
people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding
the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional
problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can't be the
judge in your own case. Indeed, you can't be the accuser, judge and jury in
any fraud case and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to
accrue to yourself.
And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about
whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set
yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No
individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You
have every right, and indeed every responsibility, as do I!, to point out
fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide
whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right,
then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright
violations just because I said so. You clearly don't want that to be the
case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot
have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in
the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any
other case you might bring or be accused of. I'm not sure who in China, or
in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to
use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this
point in time is that our controversy
will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as
plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has
the authority to handle such issues. |
|
