◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.dropin.org)(xys-reader.org)◇◇

对葛志军有关Accnes的《答复》一文的评论

作者：大路

　　看了Acnes于4月26日发表的《中国医科大学张励才等人两篇弄虚作假论文》
一文后，本人出于职业敏感和好奇，下载了两篇文章的全文进行解剖。

　　本人从事镇痛和药物依赖的行为学方面的研究多年，可以负责任地说，葛志
军的两篇文章存在重大造假嫌疑：凡是从事过行为学研究的人都知道，两个独立
的实验，采用大鼠是不可能得出如此类似的数据的！如果把两篇文章的各个图拷
贝后对应放在一起，很多数据点是完全重合的！行为学实验的一个特点就是动物
个体差异巨大。两组大鼠，即使采用热板法单纯测试吗啡，也根本不可能得出如
此类似（个别数据点完全一致）的结果的！

　　读完两篇全文后，本人分别给Pharmacology和Neuroscience Letters的杂志
主编发了email并附上两篇文章。Pharmacology的副主编第二天给我回了信，全
文如下：

Dear Dr. x:

Thanks for your email expressing concern about similarlities in two 
papers recently published in Neuroscience Letters (Ge, et al., 413; 
233-237, 2007) and Pharmacology (Ge ,et al. 80; 261-268, 2007). 
Although I am not the Editor that deals with Asian submissions, I will 
forward this email to my fellow Editors, Drs. Donnerer and Maeyama, at 
Pharmacology. A quick examination of both papers reveals substantial 
similarity in several portions of the text, as well as 
similar-appearing figures, in spite of different experimental protocols. 
 I also note that neither paper refers to the other, in spite of 
similar methods, materials and topics. Given this and that both papers 
were likely under review at Pharmacology and Neuroscience Letters at 
similar times, it would have been difficult to note these apparent 
similarlities during review.

I will keep you posted as to what we find.

Please feel free to call me if you would like.

Sincerely;

Melvin Billingsley, PhD
Professor of Pharmacology
Penn State University College of Medicine

　　我并没有给Billingsley博士打电话。隔了几天后Pharmacology和
Neuroscience Letters的编辑分别都给我回了信，大致内容都差不多，
Neuroscience Letters的编辑回信如下：

Dear Dr. X, 

    In response to your email of 4/26/08, please note that 
Neuroscience Letters takes allegations of error and/or fraud or 
falsification very seriously. However, NSL  is not in a position to 
investigate allegations of potential misconduct.  Our policy is to 
refer such allegations to the institution where the work was carried 
out, for further investigation as appropriate.  We have forwarded the 
allegation to the institution that was listed as the corresponding 
author's address on the Neuroscience Letters article.   After that 
institution has studied this matter,and has let us know about the 
outcome, Neuroscience Letters will take appropriate action.

    We are enclosing the email text that we have sent to the 
responsible authorities at the institution where the work was performed. 

Kind regards, 
Peter Geraghty 

Peter Geraghty 
Journal Manager 
Elsevier Inc. 

因为两个杂志本身无法对学术不端和学术造假行为进行彻查，因为根据杂志的政
策，两个杂志分别给论文的通讯作者单位寄去了如下信件，要求作者所在大学对
此进行彻查。

两个杂志所发的信件类似，下面是Neuroscience Letters杂志给中国医科大学去
函的内容：

Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to you, in my capacity as Editor of Neuroscience 
Letters, after having received an email which alleges that apparently 
identical results were published twice by one of your faculty members, 
Dr.Li-Cai Zhang and represented as coming from different experiments 
in Neuroscience Letters ( 413: 233-237, 2007) and in another journal, 
Pharmacology (80:261-268, 2007 ).   The corresponding author of the 
Neuroscience Letters paper is Li-Cai Zhang, of the Department of 
Anaesthesiology, Affiliated Hospital of the First Medical College. A 
copy of the allegation is enclosed. 

    Neuroscience Letters is not in a position to determine whether the 
allegations that have been made are true or not, and if true, whether 
they are, or are not, the result of error, fraud, or falsification.  I 
would note that, although it is not possible to make a definitive 
statement without examination of the original source results, on 
perusal of the published results, it appears that while they are 
represented as coming from different experiments, they appear very 
similar and possibly identical.

   Neuroscience Letters takes allegations of error and/or fraud or 
falsification very seriously.  Our policy is to refer such allegations 
to the institution where the work was carried out, for further 
investigation as appropriate.  Since your institution was listed as 
the corresponding author's address on the Neuroscience Letters article, 
and since Dr. Li-Cai Zhang is currently a member of your faculty, we 
are referring this matter to you.   After your institution has studied 
this matter, we would appreciate hearing the outcome so that, if 
appropriate, Neuroscience Letters can take appropriate action.

   Thank you for your attention to this.

Sincerely,

Stephen Waxman, MD,PhD

　　不仅仅是杂志的编辑，任何一个视力正常的人都能够看出两篇文章尽管是完
全独立的实验，但是实验结果惊人的类似（甚至相同）。出于可以理解的原因，
杂志无法对此查处，但并不表明造假者可以因此而有恃无恐、逍遥法外。

　　尽管葛志军辩称“我很纳闷，难道不同注射部位就一定会有不同的结果吗？
那么请问我们是尊重实验结果？还是尊重推理与推测？”答案当然是尊重实验结
果，但是尊重严格遵循学术道德和科学规范而产生的真正的实验结果而不是造假
后的实验结果！

　　相信这件事情最终可能会不了了之，因为我们看到了太多这样的例子，作者
单位出于“家丑不可外扬”的考虑，往往会对造假者进行包庇。那为什么我们还
要揭露呢？是科学的良心！科学容不得造假！不要认为Pharmacology和
Neuroscience Letters这种小杂志，发表点垃圾文章无伤大雅。这照样可以造成
国际影响！设想一下，如果国外的研究小组读了你的文章而无法重复你的实验
（这几乎是一定的，能够重复出来才叫邪门呢），他们的坏印象不仅仅是你，而
可能是整个中国的科研人员。

　　相信中国医科大学已经收到了两个杂志发的公函，这可能已经给文章的作者
们造成了压力，这也是葛志军在Acnes的帖子发了一个多月之后才出来回应的原
因。相信如果没有杂志公函的质询和随后学校的干预，他才不会去理会什么xys
上的一个帖子呢。他知道不会有人去他的实验室重复他的这个实验，所以才夸下
海口；他现在也信誓旦旦让别人去查他的实验纪录，这玩艺我相信也不会查出什
么问题来。

　　难道，就无法判定是造假了吗？当然不是！科学的一个基本原则就是可重复
性，如果其他独立的实验室无法重复该结果，那就是造假！尽管具体到这个个案，
我不认为会有哪个小组去重复这种试验，这可能永远是一个谜，永远不会有一个
答案。但，这并不妨碍很多人心中的“高度怀疑”，并因此而强烈影响对你以后
的论文的真实性看法。这，大概是唯一能够对造假者的惩罚吧。

(XYS20080604)

◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys.dxiong.com)(xys.dropin.org)(xys-reader.org)◇◇