An international medical journal's retraction of 107 research papers from China, many of them by clinical doctors, has reignited concerns over academic credibility in the country.
一家國(guó)際醫(yī)學(xué)雜志撤銷了107篇中國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)論文，由此引發(fā)了人們對(duì)中國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)誠(chéng)信的關(guān)注。被撤稿的作者多數(shù)是臨床醫(yī)生。
Tumor Biology, a journal published by Springer Nature, announced last week that it had retracted the papers after an investigation showed the peer review process had been compromised.
由施普林格自然集團(tuán)出版的雜志《腫瘤生物學(xué)》上周宣布，調(diào)查顯示，這107篇論文的同行評(píng)審過(guò)程存在問(wèn)題，因此已被撤稿。
"The articles were submitted with reviewer suggestions, which had real researcher names but fabricated email addresses," Peter Butler, editorial director for cell biology and biochemistry at Springer Nature, told Shanghai-based news website The Paper.
施普林格自然集團(tuán)細(xì)胞生物學(xué)和生物化學(xué)編輯部主任皮特?巴特勒對(duì)上海澎湃新聞網(wǎng)站表示：“這些論文提交的評(píng)審人建議中，使用了評(píng)審人的真實(shí)姓名，但假冒了其電子郵件地址�！�
"The editors thought the articles were being sent out to genuine reviewers in the discipline," he said. "Following our investigation and communication with the real reviewers, they confirmed they did not conduct the peer review."
“這讓編輯以為文章發(fā)送給了該學(xué)科真正的評(píng)審人。我們與真正的評(píng)審人進(jìn)行調(diào)查和溝通后，他們確認(rèn)并沒(méi)有對(duì)論文做過(guò)評(píng)審。
Peer review is an evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to those who produce the work, which helps validate research.
同行評(píng)審指由一個(gè)或多個(gè)與論文作者業(yè)務(wù)能力相當(dāng)?shù)娜诉M(jìn)行評(píng)估，這有助于對(duì)研究進(jìn)行驗(yàn)證。
The online notice about the retraction lists all 107 articles and 524 authors, nearly all of whom are clinical cancer specialists from China. The hospitals named are all top public institutions.
網(wǎng)上的撤稿公告共列出了107篇論文及524位作者，他們幾乎都是中國(guó)臨床腫瘤專家。所涉及的醫(yī)院都是頂級(jí)公立機(jī)構(gòu)。
A Beijing cancer specialist who didn't want to be named said on Sunday that although there is no excuse for compromising scientific credibility, the incident reveals a widespread dilemma facing Chinese physicians who struggle to strike a balance between overloaded daily work schedules and academic requirements, primarily publishing papers to secure professional development and promotion.
一位不具名的北京癌癥專家23日稱，雖說(shuō)破壞科學(xué)公信力的行為不該有任何借口，但是這起事件揭示了中國(guó)醫(yī)生面臨的普遍困境，即在超負(fù)荷的日常工作安排與發(fā)表論文以爭(zhēng)取職業(yè)發(fā)展和升職的主要學(xué)術(shù)要求之間很難維持平衡。
"How many patients do Chinese doctors see a day? It can be more than 50," he told China Daily. "How can we have the time and energy to do research or publish papers?"
他告訴《中國(guó)日?qǐng)?bào)》：“中國(guó)醫(yī)生每天要看多少病人？可能超過(guò)50個(gè)。我們?cè)趺纯赡苡袝r(shí)間和精力做研究或發(fā)論文呢？”
For those outside the scientific community, the response to the retraction has been mixed.
科學(xué)圈外的人士對(duì)論文撤稿的反應(yīng)不一。
"Hard to believe so many doctors lied in the papers. Can patients still trust them to help us treat diseases?" wrote one Sina Weibo user.
一位新浪微博網(wǎng)友寫(xiě)道：“不敢相信這么多醫(yī)生都在論文中造假。病人還能相信他們可以幫人治病嗎？”
However, others argued that doctors' hands may be forced by an unfair system. "As a patient, I'm more concerned about whether they can cure my illness rather than how many papers they've published," another netizen said.
然而，還有人認(rèn)為醫(yī)生的所作所為可能是受不公平的體制所迫。另一位網(wǎng)友稱：“作為一個(gè)病人，我更關(guān)心他們能否治好我的病，而不是他們發(fā)表了多少論文�！�
Wang Chunfa, executive secretary of the China Association for Science and Technology, has expressed deep concern over the retraction, which came just days after he met in Beijing with Arnout Jacobs, the head of Springer Nature for Greater China.
中國(guó)科學(xué)技術(shù)協(xié)會(huì)書(shū)記處書(shū)記王春法對(duì)撤稿事件表示深切關(guān)注，事件發(fā)生幾天前，他剛在北京與施普林格自然集團(tuán)大中華地區(qū)總裁安諾杰會(huì)面溝通。
In that meeting, he told Jacobs that such problems would decrease, as China is reforming its management system in science and technology, according to a statement by the association on Friday.
據(jù)中國(guó)科協(xié)21日發(fā)表的聲明稱，在會(huì)談中，王春法對(duì)安諾杰表示，中國(guó)正在進(jìn)行科技管理體制改革，此類問(wèn)題將有所減少。
Wang said the journal and authors had an unavoidable responsibility in the latest scandal, with the statement adding that Tumor Biology had retracted papers over similar concerns about the peer review process in 2015.
他說(shuō)，雜志和作者在這起最近發(fā)生的丑聞中都有不可推卸的責(zé)任，聲明中還說(shuō)，《腫瘤生物學(xué)》在2015年就已經(jīng)因同行評(píng)議過(guò)程存在類似問(wèn)題而撤銷一些論文。
Verification and evaluation should be enhanced before publication, Wang said.
王春法說(shuō)，在出版前應(yīng)加強(qiáng)審查和評(píng)估。
Jacobs vowed at the meeting to improve management and cooperation with the association to enhance the credibility of the science. He stressed the publisher was not targeting China, as it had also retracted papers by experts from other countries, the statement said.
聲明表示，安諾杰在會(huì)談中承諾將加強(qiáng)管理，增強(qiáng)與中國(guó)科協(xié)的合作，提升科學(xué)公信力。他強(qiáng)調(diào)，施普林格自然集團(tuán)并非針對(duì)中國(guó)，他們也撤銷過(guò)其他國(guó)家專家的論文。
