哈佛教授要求中国经济刊物就剽窃行为做出道歉
29 06 2006年记者：PAUL MOONEY
美国《高等教育纪事报》2006年6月27日
美国《高等教育纪事报》2006年6月27日
（翻译：方舟子）
哈佛商学院的一位教授要求一份中国学术刊物就大量地剽窃他发表于十几年
前的著作一事做出公开道歉。
这个事件开始于2003年，当时有一位未透露姓名的中国教授发现，两名中国
经济学家发表在《中国经济学季刊》上的一篇论文剽窃了由哈佛大学商学院教授
麦克·C·詹森和罗切斯特大学商学院已故院长威廉·H·麦克灵合写的一篇论文
的内容和图表。
这名中国教授将其发现告知该杂志，在没有得到杂志主编的回应之后，于
2004年12月将它发表在新语丝网站上。这个中文网站致力于揭露中国的学术腐败。
詹森先生在星期天的电话采访中说，他在今年2月知道了这个事件，当时一
名在美国的华人教授给他寄去了那篇涉嫌剽窃的中文论文。由詹森先生和麦克灵
先生合写的原始论文的题目为《专用知识、一般知识和组织结构》，并于1990年
首次发表于瑞典的《契约经济学》上。之后它发表在1995年《应用公司财务期
刊》，并收入1998年哈佛大学出版社出版的《组织战略的基础》一书中。
詹森先生获悉剽窃事件之后，立即给《中国经济学季刊》的主编姚洋写了一
封信，要求该主编正式承认剽窃，并要求论文的作者向他“私下”致歉。论文的
作者是人民大学经济学院院长杨瑞龙和南开大学经济研究所教授刘刚。
在信中，詹森先生称这个案件非常严重和重大，并说剽窃的证据是“毋庸置
疑的”。
“在专业的学术界，有众所周知的国际学术行为标准。”詹森先生写道，
“剽窃，尤其是如此程度的剽窃，直接严重地违背最基本的学术标准。这属于盗
窃，简单、明了，必须予以纠正。”
《中国经济学季刊》的主编姚先生拒绝就这个案件发表评论。但是他在致新
语丝网站的一封信中说，作者“借用詹文中的方法，讨论了不同于詹文的问题”。
姚先生的信得出结论说“借用他人方法讨论不同问题在学术上是允许的”。
“因此该文不能认定为抄袭，”他写道，补充说作者的唯一错误是没有引用
詹森先生的论文，他说这属于学术上“不规范行为”。
新语丝网站的负责人方是民在一则评论中说姚先生和《中国经济学季刊》
“显然不知道剽窃是什么意思”。
姚先生在信中说他已将其鉴定寄给了两位作者，他们表示没有异议。他接着
说他也把《中国经济学季刊》的鉴定寄给了詹森先生，但是没有收到回音。他说，
因此可以推断詹森先生接受了该解释。
詹森先生在采访中说，论文作者已写信给他就剽窃行为做了道歉，但是他们
的信是“完全不能令人满意的”，因为它与在中国发表的否认不恰当使用其成果
的声明相互矛盾，例如姚先生致新语丝网站的信。“暗示他们的回应已解决了问
题，这是完全不对的，”他说，“事实恰恰相反。”
詹森先生说他并不是要给谁找麻烦，但是他说他不知道如何解决这个问题。
他说他正在征求一名中国律师的意见，而且他不会放过此事，除非他收到公开的
道歉并且在《中国经济学季刊》网站发表承认剽窃的声明。他说，如果作者满足
了其要求，“事情将会了结。”
Higher Education Chronicle, Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Harvard Professor Demands Apology for Plagiarism in Chinese
Economics
Journal
Economics
Journal
By PAUL MOONEY
Beijing
A Harvard Business School professor is demanding a public
apology from
a Chinese academic journal that he says extensively plagiarized
his
work from more than a decade ago.
apology from
a Chinese academic journal that he says extensively plagiarized
his
work from more than a decade ago.
The episode began in 2003, when an unnamed Chinese
professor
discovered that an article by two Chinese economists that had
appeared
in the China Economic Quarterly had plagiarized materials and a
graph
that was originally in an article by Michael C. Jensen, a professor
in
the Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard
University,
and William H. Meckling, dean of the University of
Rochester’s
business school, who has since died.
professor
discovered that an article by two Chinese economists that had
appeared
in the China Economic Quarterly had plagiarized materials and a
graph
that was originally in an article by Michael C. Jensen, a professor
in
the Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard
University,
and William H. Meckling, dean of the University of
Rochester’s
business school, who has since died.
The Chinese professor informed the journal of his finding, and
after
failing to receive a response from the editor, he published it on
the
New Threads Web site in December 2004. The Chinese-language Web
site
is devoted to uncovering cases of academic corruption in
China.
after
failing to receive a response from the editor, he published it on
the
New Threads Web site in December 2004. The Chinese-language Web
site
is devoted to uncovering cases of academic corruption in
China.
Mr. Jensen said in a telephone interview on Sunday that he
learned of
the incident in February, when a Chinese professor in the
United
States sent him a copy of the plagiarized Chinese article.
The
original paper, by Mr. Jensen and Mr. Meckling, was titled
“Specific
and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure” and was
first
published in Contract Economics, in Sweden, in 1990. It
subsequently
appeared in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, in 1995, and
in
Foundations of Organizational Strategy, a book published by
Harvard
University Press in 1998.
learned of
the incident in February, when a Chinese professor in the
United
States sent him a copy of the plagiarized Chinese article.
The
original paper, by Mr. Jensen and Mr. Meckling, was titled
“Specific
and General Knowledge and Organizational Structure” and was
first
published in Contract Economics, in Sweden, in 1990. It
subsequently
appeared in the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, in 1995, and
in
Foundations of Organizational Strategy, a book published by
Harvard
University Press in 1998.
Mr. Jensen said that after learning of the plagiarized
article, he
promptly wrote a letter to Yao Yang, editor of CEQ, demanding a
formal
acknowledgment of the plagiarism by the editor and a “closed
door”
statement of apology from the authors, Yang Ruilong, dean of
the
School of Economics of Renmin University, and Liu Gang, a professor
in
the Nankai Institute of Economics at Nankai University.
article, he
promptly wrote a letter to Yao Yang, editor of CEQ, demanding a
formal
acknowledgment of the plagiarism by the editor and a “closed
door”
statement of apology from the authors, Yang Ruilong, dean of
the
School of Economics of Renmin University, and Liu Gang, a professor
in
the Nankai Institute of Economics at Nankai University.
In the letter, Mr. Jensen called the case serious and
extensive and
said that the evidence was “compelling and indisputable.”
extensive and
said that the evidence was “compelling and indisputable.”
“In the professional academic world, there are recognized
global
standards of behavior,” Mr. Jensen wrote. “Plagiarism,
especially
plagiarism of such extent, is a direct and profound violation of
the
most fundamental of those standards. It is theft, pure and simple,
and
it demands redress.”
global
standards of behavior,” Mr. Jensen wrote. “Plagiarism,
especially
plagiarism of such extent, is a direct and profound violation of
the
most fundamental of those standards. It is theft, pure and simple,
and
it demands redress.”
Mr. Yao, editor of CEQ, refused to comment on the case. But
according
to a letter he sent to the New Threads Web site, the authors
had
“borrowed the method used in Jensen’s article to discuss a
problem
that was different from Jensen’s problem.”
according
to a letter he sent to the New Threads Web site, the authors
had
“borrowed the method used in Jensen’s article to discuss a
problem
that was different from Jensen’s problem.”
Mr. Yao’s letter concluded that “borrowing another person’s
method to
discuss a different problem is allowed in academia.”
method to
discuss a different problem is allowed in academia.”
“As a result, this article cannot be considered to be a case
of
plagiarism,” he wrote, adding that the only mistake was that
the
authors did not cite Mr. Jensen’s paper, which he said was a
“nonstandard act” in academe.
of
plagiarism,” he wrote, adding that the only mistake was that
the
authors did not cite Mr. Jensen’s paper, which he said was a
“nonstandard act” in academe.
Fang Shi-min, who runs the New Threads site, said in a
commentary that
Mr. Yao and CEQ “apparently don’t understand what plagiarism
means.”
commentary that
Mr. Yao and CEQ “apparently don’t understand what plagiarism
means.”
Mr. Yao said in his letter that he had presented his findings
to the
two authors and that neither disagreed with him. He went on to
say
that CEQ’s findings had been sent to Mr. Jensen, but that he
never
responded. It was therefore concluded, he said, that Mr. Jensen
had
accepted the explanation.
to the
two authors and that neither disagreed with him. He went on to
say
that CEQ’s findings had been sent to Mr. Jensen, but that he
never
responded. It was therefore concluded, he said, that Mr. Jensen
had
accepted the explanation.
Mr. Jensen said, in the interview, that the authors had
written to him
to apologize for the plagiarism, but that their letter was
“totally
unsatisfactory” because it contradicted statements in China, like
Mr.
Yao’s letter on the New Threads Web site, that denied the improper
use
of his research. “It’s totally inappropriate to imply that
their
response solved the matter,” he said. “That’s absolutely to
the
contrary.”
written to him
to apologize for the plagiarism, but that their letter was
“totally
unsatisfactory” because it contradicted statements in China, like
Mr.
Yao’s letter on the New Threads Web site, that denied the improper
use
of his research. “It’s totally inappropriate to imply that
their
response solved the matter,” he said. “That’s absolutely to
the
contrary.”
Mr. Jensen said he was not looking to cause problems for
anyone, but
he said he was at a loss over how to resolve the problem. He said
that
he was consulting a lawyer in China and that he would not drop
the
matter unless he received a public apology and unless a statement
was
published acknowledging the plagiarism on the CEQ Web site. If
the
authors meet his demand, Mr. Jensen said, “it will be all
over.”
anyone, but
he said he was at a loss over how to resolve the problem. He said
that
he was consulting a lawyer in China and that he would not drop
the
matter unless he received a public apology and unless a statement
was
published acknowledging the plagiarism on the CEQ Web site. If
the
authors meet his demand, Mr. Jensen said, “it will be all
over.”
(XYS20060629)
