| 3 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 查看: 1420 | 回復(fù): 2 | ||||
13250203067
|
[交流]
PLOSONE因一字錯用撤稿說明什么? 已有1人參與
|
|
2016年1月5日,華中科技大學(xué)某研究團隊的論文“Biomechanical Characteristics of HandCoordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living” 在開放獲取期刊PLOSONE上發(fā)表。他們通過運動數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計分析檢視手部協(xié)調(diào)性的特征,并尋找肌腱關(guān)聯(lián)特性與抓取協(xié)調(diào)性的相關(guān)性,最終確定人手結(jié)構(gòu)與協(xié)調(diào)性之間的機能關(guān)系。這篇從設(shè)計到結(jié)果看似完美的論文卻因一字錯用而引起軒然大波。 3月2日曼徹斯特大學(xué)計算分子進化學(xué)者James McInerney首先在Twitter上,矛頭直指期刊:PLOS ONE is now a joke. "...proper design of the Creator"absolute joke of a journal.該論文被攻擊是神創(chuàng)論,宣揚上帝造人。 3月3日,論文第一作者Mingjin Liu在PLOS ONE論文評論區(qū)鄭重道歉并予以說明。 We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study hasno relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Ourunderstanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speakerexpected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What wewould like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendiousconnective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design bytheNATURE (result of evolution) toperform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will changethe Creator to nature in the revisedmanu. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding. We have spent seven months doing the experiments, analysis, and writeup. I hope this paperwill not bediscriminated only because of this misunderstanding of the word. Please could you read the paper beforemaking a decision. 作者的道歉并未挽救這篇論文。PLOS ONE于3月3日公告:綜合內(nèi)部討論以及兩位編委會專家的意見,這篇論文確實存在問題,并暴露出同行評議過程并沒有對該文各方面給予充分的考量。PLOS ONE編輯部決定,此文將被盡快撤回。 目前在PLOS ONE的網(wǎng)站上能看到如下聲明: Following publication,readers raised concerns about language inthe article that makes references to a'Creator', and about the overallrationale and findings of the study. Upon receiving theseconcerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluationof the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought furtheradvice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluationconfirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language,which were not adequately addressed during peer review. Consequently,the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be reliedupon and retract this publication. The editors apologizeto readers for the inappropriatelanguage in the article and the errors during the evaluation process. 撤稿事件之后,不少中國科研工作者為該文作者感到委屈。認為英語并不是我們的母語,中國作者不理解英文中Creator的特定含義并沒有什么好奇怪的。況且論文已經(jīng)通過了編輯、審稿人審閱。那么責(zé)任到底在誰? 讓我們來仔細讀讀這篇論文,“The Creator”在文中出現(xiàn)了三次,第一次在摘要:即“Theexplicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic oftendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is theproper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in acomfortable way.”通常而言,摘要需要簡明扼要的表達出研究目的、方法、結(jié)果和結(jié)論。而且摘要中的結(jié)論一定是要能被研究結(jié)果支持和證實的。那么作者這句話合不合適呢?我們認為,不僅“the Creator”不適合,“properdesign”的使用也是不合適的。 第二次出現(xiàn)在引言:即“Hand coordinationshould indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.” 同樣,不僅“the Creator”, “mystery”的使用也是大錯特錯的。 第三次出現(xiàn)在結(jié)論:即“In conclusion, ourstudy can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that themechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterousperformance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of theancestral hand for millions of years.”作者在“the proper design bythe Creator”之前還用了單詞“confirm”。這真的被本研究confirm了嗎? 如果只是一次出現(xiàn)“the Creator”,我們還可以盡量理解作者是想表達“巧奪天工”、“天衣無縫”等意思。但是這三次出現(xiàn)的“ the Creator”,還有文中的“Invention”,“Mystery”,“Superior”等詞,都是很不合適的表達。 科技論文寫作,不是文學(xué),不是為了審美。我們不僅要把我們的科研工作真實、客觀、準(zhǔn)確的呈現(xiàn)出來,更要從根本上回答我們的研究解決了什么科學(xué)問題,邏輯性在其中發(fā)揮最關(guān)鍵的作用!而作者的錯誤,并不只是用錯了英文詞匯,更是沒有從邏輯上正確解釋自己的研究成果。作者本來已經(jīng)恰當(dāng)?shù)孛枋隽藢嶒灧椒ê徒Y(jié)果,卻在結(jié)論中不恰當(dāng)?shù)厥褂昧宋膶W(xué)語言來贊美“造物主”之“神奇”、感嘆“大自然”之“美妙”。結(jié)果“畫蛇添足、弄巧成拙、貽笑大方”。當(dāng)然,這個錯誤責(zé)任不只是在第一作者,其他作者也有份。 其實,這樣的錯誤在同行評審階段就應(yīng)該被發(fā)現(xiàn),被提出,被修改。但是為什么這篇論文帶著這樣的錯誤走到了公開發(fā)表的階段?PLOSONE更難辭其咎。PLOSONE的編審體系到底出了什么問題,以至出現(xiàn)這么大的失誤?而且,PLOSONE僅僅匆匆回應(yīng)和迅速撤稿,并未徹底反省審查自身的評審機制,也未表明以后將采取什么具體措施以改進自己的評審機制。這些都令母語非英文的作者,尤其中國作者擔(dān)憂! 作為母語非英文的我們,不能坐以待斃。我們必須努力提高自己的英文科技論文寫作水平,謹(jǐn)慎選擇期刊,并有技巧性的與期刊編輯溝通。同時在必要時尋求質(zhì)量優(yōu)異、聲譽良好的專業(yè)編輯公司的幫助。 |
研之有理 |
銀蟲 (正式寫手)
捐助貴賓 (小有名氣)
醫(yī)學(xué)編輯
| 3 | 1/1 | 返回列表 |
| 最具人氣熱帖推薦 [查看全部] | 作者 | 回/看 | 最后發(fā)表 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑推薦 材料 304 +4 | 荷包蛋hyj 2026-03-26 | 4/200 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[考研] 329求調(diào)劑 +5 | 1() 2026-03-22 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 復(fù)試調(diào)劑,一志愿南農(nóng)083200食品科學(xué)與工程 +3 | XQTJZ 2026-03-26 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 340求調(diào)劑 +3 | Amber00 2026-03-26 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 274求調(diào)劑 +14 | 顧九笙要謙虛 2026-03-24 | 20/1000 |
|
|
[考研] 0856求調(diào)劑 +8 | zhn03 2026-03-25 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研] 環(huán)境專碩324分求調(diào)劑推薦 +5 | 軒小寧—— 2026-03-26 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 334分 一志愿武理-080500 材料求調(diào)劑 +4 | 李李不服輸 2026-03-25 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 【2026考研調(diào)劑】制藥工程 284分 求相關(guān)專業(yè)調(diào)劑名額 +4 | 袁奐奐 2026-03-25 | 8/400 |
|
|
[考研] 299求調(diào)劑 +7 | shxchem 2026-03-20 | 9/450 |
|
|
[考研] 調(diào)劑 +4 | 13853210211 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 材料專碩331求調(diào)劑 +4 | 鮮當(dāng)牛 2026-03-24 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] 307求調(diào)劑 +5 | 超級伊昂大王 2026-03-24 | 5/250 |
|
|
[考研] 一志愿北京化工大學(xué) 070300 學(xué)碩 336分 求調(diào)劑 +7 | vv迷 2026-03-22 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 384求調(diào)劑 +3 | 子系博 2026-03-22 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 求老師收我 +3 | zzh16938784 2026-03-23 | 3/150 |
|
|
[考研] 303求調(diào)劑 +5 | 安憶靈 2026-03-22 | 6/300 |
|
|
[考研] 初試 317 +7 | 半拉月丙 2026-03-20 | 7/350 |
|
|
[考研] 求調(diào)劑 +4 | 要好好無聊 2026-03-21 | 4/200 |
|
|
[考研] A區(qū)線材料學(xué)調(diào)劑 +5 | 周周無極 2026-03-20 | 5/250 |
|