论文部分内容阅读
1993年1月13日《中国科学报》和1993年2月号《物理学报》分别公开披露李富斌剽窃论文事件。令人震惊! 《物理学报》于1992年10月下旬收得郝柏林、刘寄星同志来信,披露李富斌剽窃论文事,经查证核实后,曾于1992年10月29日致函李富斌,就近年来,他向我刊投寄5篇尚在审查过程中的论文是否追踪过国内外检索文献(即查重),请出示证明。另外,以往他在我刊发表的论文是否也进行过上述工作程序,亦请明示。李在回信中称:“在进行这些研究项目的调研过程中,都曾查阅过《Physics Abstracts》以及Phys.Rev.A和B。但肯定是不系统的…我仅凭我的数理功底和物理直觉做一点微不足道的工作,…何敢去与名人争先。…我外文水平太差…,我不明白你们要的证明,…我不明白为什么以往贵刊从未要求过出具证明呢?是不是贵刊有什么新规定?”鉴于上述,我刊决定将尚在审理中的5篇文章退回李富斌。
January 13, 1993, “China Science News” and February 1993, “Acta Physica Sinica”, respectively, publicly disclosed Li Fubin plagiarism papers. Shocking! “Acta Physica Sinica” received a letter from Comrade Hao Berlin and Liu Shixing in late October 1992 to disclose Li Fubin’s plagiarism thesis. After verification and verification, he wrote a letter to Li Fubin on October 29, 1992. In recent years, he Posting 5 articles to our journal Whether the articles that are still in the process of being reviewed have tracked the domestic and foreign search documents (that is, check the weight), please show proof. In addition, in the past he also published in my paper has also carried out the above work procedures, please expressly. Li replied: “” Physics Abstracts “and Phys.Rev.A and B. have been consulted in the course of the research on these research projects, but they are certainly not systematic ... I just rely on my mathematical skills and Physical instinct to do a bit trivial work, ... dare to go to the top with celebrities ... I poor level of foreign language ... I do not understand the proof you want, ... I do not understand why in the past your magazine has never been required to produce proof? What new rules do you have in your magazines? ”In view of the above, I have decided to return five articles that are still under trial to Li Fubin.