Two months ago, Dr. Zhang Wenhong became the focus of public opinion for a while because of the suspected plagiarism of the paper, and finally Fudan University ended the controversy with a sentence of "irregular citations". Just after the notice began, Fang Ark zi immediately reported Zhang Hongwen's paper for the second time, in addition to the review of irregular citations of 3,000 words Chinese papers, the main part was copied from foreign English papers, and a few sentences of the review skipped the omitted part, that is, the introduction of the English paper. However, the second report has no impact on the Internet, and Fudan has not made any response so far.
Screenshot of the content of Fang Arkzi's second report
I have written a comment on the Internet before, saying that according to the experience of laymen eating melons, most of the melons in recent years are in the biological/medical circles, which is not melon again. In October, DNA and Cell Biology retracted a paper in the Fudan University correspondence between Zhang Wenhong and Zhang Ying, and the whistleblower was still Fang Arkzi.
Here I don't want to discuss zhang Wenhong and Fang Arkzi's various things, this is undoubtedly fried cold rice, just want to say something else. I used to be a pure viewer, thinking why is there so many things in this circle? Later, I felt that there were not necessarily fewer in other fields, but there seemed to be no influential counterfeiters or anti-counterfeiting teams such as Rao Yi, Fang Zhouzi, and PubPeer.
For example, before Ning Nan Zuohou was afraid of an ordinary master's thesis of poor quality on Zhihu, half of the people in the comment area were afraid of him to be nosy, sell his reputation, people are difficult to demolish, graduation is too difficult, ruin people's lives, small things, anyway, useless.
From this point of view, it is probably only an outsider like him who does not mix with academic circles and has no interests, can scare people without scruples. And why should he be afraid? I think it is very simple, as a consumer of papers, he uses the papers as drawings to find errors and omissions. Just think, if he didn't find out, the figure was found by netizens, probably he was scolded and humiliated.
It's one thing if a little master's value is not worth forgiving, whether others can say it's another
And why am I concerned about biomedical-related paper fraud? In fact, it is not that I have any interest in academia, but that I have children and elderly people, who are afraid that they will take fake drugs with themselves.
If you think about it more deeply, you will find that my attention to the biomedical circle and the Ningnan Zuohou paper can be said to be a kind of consumer market supervision behavior. It's just not the same as traditional consumer awareness.
The absence of off-field oversight in any one area is not enough. The government still has the public procuratorial law and the supervision of the people, and the enterprises have regulatory departments and consumer supervision, while the academic circle is actually a mechanism for supervising itself. Because academic papers lack independent consumers and are consumed within the circle, the academic committee is not a highly independent supervisory body, but supervises itself, and the masses do not understand academics, and academics do not directly produce products that do not directly affect policies, so they basically do not care much. In China's special culture of interpersonal relations, this mechanism is particularly prone to failure, which eventually leads to overall corruption.
We can't just criticize the problem without trying to solve it. I boldly suggest that in today's environment of serious surplus of doctoral green peppers, the state should select the innocent doctoral green peppers, especially those who have returned from studying abroad and have less domestic interests, to investigate and deal with academic misconduct and academic fraud as a performance, to classify disciplines, establish a special, high-level national independent academic supervision unit, and provide channels to accept social supervision. If you are worried about the spread is too wide, set a range, such as 20 years ago, all previous master's thesis, and no previous on-the-job graduate student papers.
That's what we need to do, not just to discuss whether to plagiarize or not, and how much to contribute. I believe that everyone has more or less stains and contributes as long as they work hard. Stains need to be supervised to be less committed, and contributions need to be motivated to stand out. For a person who has made a big contribution, we also need to see whether he is highly powerful or known to the world, if so, it means that they have been rewarded, and they should pay more attention to responsibility and example, and should accept supervision and punishment, rather than always giving people a feeling of not being able to be a doctor. And we should pay more attention to the contributions and returns of the people at the bottom, because they are often the people who give less and return less, they are the vast majority of people, and our sympathy should be given to them more.
I have instilled in my kindergarten son that each of us is subject to supervision and has the right and obligation to supervise others. Because of this kind of thing, the root is in the culture, and it needs to be changed from the next generation.