送交者: 校友1 于 July 06, 2003 14:03:56:
回答: 新语丝：科学院院士候选人吉林大学刘式墉教授涉嫌抄袭论文 由 希望不是真的 于 July 06, 2003 10:17:33:
先声明，这个领域不太熟，个人的看法有可能有偏见-
科学研究允许不同的方法、不同的理论。仅仅从评论看，这篇文章至少有文献查询不完全之嫌。然而，在弄清楚两种理论的具体差别之前(假设有差别)，只能说涉嫌抄袭。具体点说，两种理论是否应用同样的方法导出、结论是否完全一致？
>>the authors assert that "we
>>generalized Kato's statistical theory to the diffrac-
>>tion of epitaxial layers....". The actually given the-
>>ory was published five years ago [2, 3]. Indicated in
>>[1] are the formulations, parameters and equations
>>borrowed from [2, 3]; however, the authors [1]
>>publish them as original results. Moreover, the
>>statistical theory of a diffraction on multilayer sys-
>>tems, including epitaxial layers, heterostructures
>>and superlattice is considered in detail in [4].
>>引文：
>>[1] H. An, M. Li, S. Yang, Z. Mai, S. Liu, J. Crystal >>Growth
>>148 (1995) 31.
>>[2] V.I. Punegov, A.P. Petrakov, N.A. Tikhonov, Phys. >>Status Solidi (a) 122 (1990) 449.
>>[3] V.I. Punegov, Soy. Phys. Cryst. 35 (1990) 336.
>>[4] V.I. Punegov, Phys. Status Solidi (a) 136 (1993) 9.
是否障眼法不敢乱说，至少是严重缺陷。
>>LB评：
>>不仅抄袭，还耍障眼法，
>>“The authors of the paper [1] start from consid-
>>eration of a general field of atom displacement
>>u = (u) + 8u (1)
>>and refer to work [5]. However such a representa-
>>tion in paper [5] is not present. ”
没看出被驳得“得体无完肤”。研究方法和角度的选择是文章作者的自由，不足为外人道。评论的本身倒有指手划脚之嫌。除非作者的研究方法有本质上的错误，殊途同归未尝不可。
>>实际上文章拼拼凑凑，整个被 “comment" 得体无完肤。
>>“Also, is not clear why the authors [1] take into
>>consideration a model of a mosaic crystal. A similar
>>rocking curve peak profile is possible to obtain by
>>use of many defect models [8]. ”
严谨的科学研究不是“学生的错”所能误导的。下句话似不妥。
>>这样的院士候选人. 又是学生的错吧。