Although I do not read or speak Chinese, I have had access to an English version of
Fang's article, translated by an independent source.
We believe that Fang's article would not be considered acceptable journalism in the
United States. He did not give the names of the researchers who carried out the
research or the journal in which it was published, nor did he include quotes from
other scientists. All these aspects would be essential for a journalistic article in
a US publication.
However, a charge of plagiarism would be difficult to uphold since Fang did say the
work was performed by researchers at Princeton University, and--unless the translation
I have is wrong--he neither implied that the work was his own by witing in the first
person nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.
————————————————
【新語絲電子文庫(www.xys.org)(www.xys2.org)】
你看懂了這一段話了嗎?
Although I do not read or speak Chinese, I have had access to an English version of
Fang's article, translated by an independent source.
We believe that Fang's article would not be considered acceptable journalism in the
United States. He did not give the names of the researchers who carried out the
research or the journal in which it was published, nor did he include quotes from
other scientists. All these aspects would be essential for a journalistic article in
a US publication.
何況文章又不是我寫的. 如真是造謠. 至多是失察而已. 但從英文原件看, 好像他的作為受到很嚴厲的責難. 而且犯了美國的盜用版權法. 不知他給科學雜誌的原件是如何寫的? 也不知道他給的是否是他真正發表的那一分. 科學雜誌可是留有尾巴啊
--and--unless the translation I have is wrong--如果真的是 wrong--呢?
狗仔卡
提升卡
置頂卡
沉默卡
喧囂卡
變色卡
搶沙發
樓主