应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 转载 » 国际学术期刊称数据造假一次撤销中国学者70篇论文
81/1返回列表
查看: 744  |  回复: 7
只看楼主 @他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看
当前主题已经存档。

qinshuping

银虫 (正式写手)

[交流] 国际学术期刊称数据造假一次撤销中国学者70篇论文

人民网12月26日报道《晶体学报》（Acta Crystallographica）近日发布社论通告，通过检测程序发现，至少有70篇发表在《晶体学报》C分卷或E分卷上的晶体结构报告存在数据造假行为，这些报告的作者在2006年至2008年间仅凭修改一套原始强度数据而发表系列文章。这些文章目前已被撤销，但社论表示，调查仍在继续，问题论文数量可能继续攀升。

社论透露，最初发现的伪造结构出自两个研究小组。通讯作者是H.Zhong博士和T.Liu教授，均来自中国井冈山大学。文章合作者包括井冈山大学的其他工作人员以及来自中国不同科研机构的作者。通讯作者与其合作者已经签字同意，将Zhong博士所发的41篇文章与Liu教授所发的29篇文章撤销。撤稿细节在新一期期刊上有详尽解释。而且，由于发现的问题文章来自于井冈山大学，所有由井冈山大学投递到《晶体学报》C或E的稿件现已被标记，并检查其真实性。

《晶体学报》简介


《晶体学报》有A, B, C, D, E 和 F 共6个分卷,都是国际晶体学界旗舰刊物, 归国际晶体学会领导。

资料： 期刊的影响因子及其计算方法

影响因子（Impact Factor,IF)： 即某期刊前两年发（S, T）表的论文在统计当年（U）的被引用总次数 X（前两年总被引次数）除以该期刊在前两年（S, T）内发表的论文总数 Y（前两年总发文量）。这是一个国际上通行的期刊评价指标。公式为： IFU =（X(S,T) / Y(S,T)）。
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢
1楼 2009-12-26 20:29:43
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

mtjushi

至尊木虫 (著名写手)
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
哎，国内的所谓的大家
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
人生百年常在醉，算来三万六千场！
2楼2009-12-26 20:36:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qinshuping

银虫 (正式写手)
EditorialWilliam T. A. Harrison,a Jim Simpsonb and Matthias Weilc
aDepartment of Chemistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UE, Scotland,bDepartment of Chemistry, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, and cInstitute of Chemical Technologies and Analytics, Division of Structural Chemistry, Vienna University of Technology, Getreidemarkt 9/164-SC, Austria




Regrettably, this editorial is to alert readers and authors of Acta Crystallographica Section E and the wider scientific community to the fact that we have recently uncovered evidence for an extensive series of scientific frauds involving papers published in the journal, principally during 2007. Although several thousands of structures published in Acta Crystallographica Section E every year will continue to reflect results of serious scientific work, the extent of these problems is significant with at least 70 structures demonstrated to be falsified and meanwhile acknowledged by the authors as such. Our work is ongoing and it is likely that this figure will rise further.
These problems were first discovered by Ton Spek during testing of the checking programs for the journal. Testing is routinely carried out using cifs and structure-factor files from back issues of Acta Crystallographica Sections E or C. Initially, unexplained Hirshfeld rigid-bond alerts and unusual metal-ligand donor-atom distances led to the discovery that metal atoms had been transposed and that more than one structure had been `determined' using identical sets of data. Investigation of these cases sparked a search of papers written by the correspondence authors involved.
A program written by Toine Schreurs of Utrecht University that can examine and compare two structure-factor files was then used to examine the data deposited for the structures under investigation. For all of the problem structures, the program revealed that the data sets used to refine two or more supposedly unique structures were in fact identical, but with the cell parameters apparently manually altered by the authors concerned.
The falsified structures have many features in common: in each case, a bona fide set of intensity data, usually on a compound whose structure had been correctly determined and reported in the literature, was used to produce a number of papers, with the authors changing one or more atoms in the structure to produce what appeared to be a genuine structure determination of a new compound. The worst example generated no fewer than 18 supposedly original structures from a single common set of data. There is nothing to suggest that the authors of the original papers describing the real structures are in any way aware of, or complicit in, this fraud.
Bogus refinements were found for both metal-organic and organic structures. The most common ploy was to acquire a data set for a coordination complex, say of copper(II). Changing the metal from copper(II) to zinc(II), nickel(II), iron(II) or even cobalt(III) produced papers reporting seemingly novel compounds. In order to decrease the risk of detection, changes in the metal were generally accompanied by small (< 4%) manual alterations to the unit-cell parameters and also the culling of some reflections from the data sets. The scale of the problems ruled out the possibility of mere incompetence.
Similar procedures with structures containing lanthanide elements offered even greater scope for deception. In addition to changing the identity of the metal, alterations to atoms in the organic ligands added further variation to the structures falsely reported.
Non-metal atom substitutions also generated numerous bogus organic structures. CH2 groups were replaced by NH or O and vice versa, nitro groups became carboxylic acids and amides, OH groups became fluorine atoms; the list is extensive. The residuals on the resulting fraudulent refinements were generally worse than those of the genuine material but not sufficiently so as to cause undue concern on their own. However, chemically implausible or impossible structures arose from these manipulations, and it is a concern and disappointment that these chemical features passed into the literature undetected.
The initial set of falsified structures arises from two groups. The correspondence authors are Dr H. Zhong and Professor T. Liu, both from Jinggangshan University, Jian, China. The co-authors on these papers included other workers from Jinggangshan University together with authors from different institutions in China. Both these correspondence authors and all co-authors have signed forms agreeing to the retraction of 41 papers published by Dr Zhong and 29 by Professor Liu. Details of these retractions appear elsewhere in this issue of the journal. Having found these problems with articles from Jinggangshan University, all submissions from this University to Acta Crystallographica Sections E or C have now been identified and are being checked for authenticity. Preliminary results indicate that further retractions will result from this exercise.
All Co-editors of Acta Crystallographica Sections E and C have been alerted to these fraudulent practices and have been advised of the warning signs that can be used in most instances to identify such attempts to deceive. It should be noted that many other possibly fraudulent submissions were rejected at the refereeing stage by alert and conscientious Co-editors, but until the scope of the fraud became apparent, these were reasonably regarded as one-off examples of incompetence or honest mistakes.
When we discussed the events with the Editors of other journals in the Acta family, they expressed amazement, because, like us, they assumed that it was almost inconceivable that a fake crystal structure would be submitted for publication. Sadly, that has proven not to be the case and we must now take stock and decide what steps are needed to prevent further scientific fraud. To that end, the checkCIF validation software is being improved continuously and provides an exhaustive assessment of data and structural quality and consistency. It is also noteworthy to point out that the current problems could not have been easily discovered without the availability of the structure-factor files; it will become increasingly important for all journals reporting crystal structures to make sure that they require authors to supply such data in future.
Finally, nothing can replace the sceptical (but fair) assessment of an experienced Co-editor. While it is impossible to give absolute guarantees that such a situation will not happen again, we feel that the journal, its Editors, Co-editors and the Chester staff are now far better prepared to identify and challenge any further attempts to publish anything other than articles reporting genuine structural investigations in our journal. It is a strength of crystallography that fraudulent practices can be identified, even retrospectively, by diligent archiving of data and checking such as that carried out for the Union's journals. We thank Ton Spek, George Ferguson and the IUCr Editorial Staff for all their input and assistance
赞一下 回复此楼
3楼2009-12-26 20:41:12
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

xufeigao

金虫 (正式写手)
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
一篇sci奖励一万，江西大学老师都想赚这个钱
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
4楼2009-12-26 20:44:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

gaoxin9888

金虫 (著名写手)
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
引用回帖:
Originally posted by qinshuping at 2009-12-26 20:29:
人民网12月26日报道《晶体学报》（Acta Crystallographica）近日发布社论通告，通过检测程序发现，至少有70篇发表在《晶体学报》C分卷或E分卷上的晶体结构报告存在数据造假行为，这些报告的作者在2006年至2008年间 ...

如果一篇文章在发表后第三年才被引,那不对期刊影响因子没贡献了啊!!!!!!!!!
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
5楼2009-12-26 20:47:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qinshuping

银虫 (正式写手)
可见影响因子不怎么可以呀，国外的作者对影响因子不是很在意的，
赞一下 回复此楼
6楼2009-12-26 20:56:24
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

qinshuping

银虫 (正式写手)
把我们的名声搞臭了，以后我们发文章也要受影响，郁闷呀
赞一下 回复此楼
7楼2009-12-26 20:57:08
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

stevenaaa

金虫 (正式写手)
感到很遗憾！
回复此楼
8楼2009-12-26 21:16:30
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 qinshuping 的主题更新
81/1返回列表
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复 (可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭