學術不端之痛：審稿人惡性竊取稿件擅自發表

　　12月13日，美國期刊《內科學年鑒》（Annals of Internal Medicine）同時刊出兩篇文章，直指近期發生的惡性論文剽竊事件。令人驚訝的是，抄襲并發表論文者竟是該刊的審稿人，所抄內容正是早些時候被審查的稿件。原作者直言不諱地發表了至剽竊者的信函，期刊也發表社論表明了立場。

　　在科研領域，抄襲、剽竊等高智商盜竊行為顯得比日常生活中更為常見。由于法律制度的不完善，此類行徑可能難以得到應有的制裁。不過，正義的聲音總會吶喊出來，《內科學年鑒》就最近一起極為惡劣的審稿人剽竊行為做出了官方回應，希望這不僅能夠讓讀者明白事件的嚴重性，同時以儆效尤，杜絕此類行為的發生。

Michael L. Dansinger, MD, MS

Tufts University School of Medicine

　　2015年6月，波士頓塔夫茨大學的醫學博士Dansinger和同事向《內科學年鑒》提交了題為“One-Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Zone, Weight Watchers, and Ornish Diets for Increasing Large High-Density Lipoprotein Particle Levels: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.”的論文。在經過了外部同行評議后，期刊編輯決定拒稿，并將決議于2015年7月反饋給作者。

　　時隔一年，2016年8月，Dansinger突然發現了令人震驚的情況。今年2月23日發表在EXCLI Journal上的一篇文章幾乎和他們此前遞交給《內科學年鑒》的稿件如出一轍。他很快意識到，這很可能是《年鑒》的審稿人剽竊了他們的稿件內容，擅自發表。于是他很快聯系了期刊編輯。

EXCLI Journal 上的涉事論文

　　經確認，EXCLI Journal上該文章的一名意大利作者確實曾為《年鑒》審稿。《年鑒》聯系了其本人，他對此供認不諱。EXCLI Journal也同時獲悉此事，于2016年9月將該文撤稿。

　　按照通用的學術不端處理建議，《年鑒》聯系了涉事人在文章所列機構的領導。該機構承認知悉了此事，但并未就如何處理做進一步說明。

事發后涉事者的撤稿函

　　從《內科學年鑒》的社論來看，這一事件在多個層面暴露了嚴重的問題。

　　首先，負責同行評議的審稿人應確保稿件的機密性。在文章正式發布并可以作為信息源引用之前，他們應避免在審稿過程中獲取稿件內容以供自己使用。

　　第二，該審稿人明目張膽地竊取了他人成果，并幾乎原封不動地抄襲了文字、表格和圖示。

　　第三，該審稿人編造了一組并不存在的歐洲病患，這是極為惡劣的行為，可能會導致其他人參考這些偽造數據并做出臨床決定。

　　第四，這篇剽竊文章擁有多位共同作者。這些作者同樣應當受到譴責。他們列上了自己的姓名，但顯然沒有做出任何科研貢獻，甚至沒有對該研究是否真實存在做過驗證。

　　《年鑒》編輯部對此也深感困擾，他們選擇并信任的審稿人竟然會做出如此道德敗壞之事。盡管以往沒有經歷過類似的事件，但期刊對此事的態度還是非常明確。

　　與此同時，受害人Dansinger博士也以“Plagiarist”為抬頭，寫了一封富含激情的公開信，痛斥這樣的學術不端。他指出，這一行為對雙方都帶來了傷害。這一成果基于他們先前的工作，從概念雛形到論文形成歷時5年，相當于4000個小時的工作量。被抄襲的分析方法也是其同事花費多年才建立起來的。而受到傷害的不僅是雙方人員，還包括抄襲者的機構、學者對同行評議過程的信任，以及公眾對醫學研究的信任。

　　字里行間，我們可以感受到文字背后的憤怒。不過Dansinger博士也做到了理性處置，他希望將這一事件公開，為科研群體樹立正確的價值觀，也希望抄襲者能夠改邪歸正，將來為學術界帶來積極的影響。

　　下附Dansinger博士公開信全文：

　　Dear Plagiarist: A Letter to a Peer Reviewer Who Stole and Published Our Manuscript as His Own

　　Dr. Doctor,

　　I am aware that you recently admitted to wrongly publishing, as your own, a scientific research paper that I had submitted to Annals of Internal Medicine. After serving as an external peer reviewer on our manuscript, you published that same manuscript in a different medical journal a few months later. You removed the names of the authors and the research site, replacing them with the names of your coauthors and your institution.

　　It took 5 years from conceptualization of the study to publication of the primary analysis. This study was my fellowship project and required a lot of work. It took effort to find the right research team, design the study, raise the funds, get approvals, recruit and create materials for study participants, run the diet classes, conduct the study visits, compile and analyze the study data, and write the initial report. The work was funded by the U.S. government and my academic institution. The secondary analysis that you reviewed for Annals used specialized methods that took my colleagues many years to develop and validate. In all, this body of research represents at least 4000 hours of work. When you published our work as your own, you were falsely claiming credit for all of this work and for the expertise gained by doing it.

　　As you must certainly know, stealing is wrong. It is especially problematic in scientific research. The peer-review process depends on the ethical behavior of reviewers. Physicians and patients depend on the integrity of the process. Such cases of theft, scientific fraud, and plagiarism cannot be tolerated because they are harmful and unethical. Those who engage in such behavior can typically expect their professional careers to be ruined: Loss of reputation, loss of employment, and ineligibility for future research funding are the norm. Coauthors are also collaborators in the fraud, and such losses potentially apply to them as well. All the previous publications of those who steal others' work become suspect, and it reflects poorly on their training institutions, current employers, collaborators, and mentors.

　　It is hard to understand why you would risk so much. You have no doubt worked hard to become a physician and scientist. I know that you have published many research papers. It just doesn't make sense. Whether the pressure to publish is so intense, or whether the culture where you work is relatively permissive such that plagiarism is not taken as seriously, or whether getting caught seemed unlikely—it is hard to imagine why you would take this chance.

　　I hope you will not steal anyone else's research in the future. Instead, perhaps there is some way you can assist the scientific community's efforts to reverse the growing epidemic of plagiarism and scientific fraud. Helping to raise awareness of the problem and identifying potential solutions would be positive steps in the right direction.