E35 抄袭、造假、洗稿，学术的象牙塔里为什么丑闻层出不穷？

今年学术很火，但可惜不是以好的方式火。抄袭、造假、洗稿，为什么学术好像突然变成了一个“流氓圈“？

当你看到无数标题党想马上按下结论，拉下院长，觉得中国学术已经无可救药的时候，我想邀请你停下来，听听中、欧，文、理科学者怎么说，听听学术造假吹哨人怎么说，听听专门研究学术造假的学者怎么说，甚至，来听听论文工厂的运营怎么说。

事实上，学术造假这件事，涉及到的不只是一两位学者，还有一整个产业链、以及整个学术评价和晋升体系。而就连学术造假纠察这件事儿也没那么容易，很多看似应该随机的小数点，在学术里，它真的就不随机。

讽刺很容易，理解却需要时间。而只有真正理解这件事的复杂性，也许，我们才能开始讨论，该如何解决。

【时间轴】

00:00 调查记者梦妮深入论文工厂👀

08:45 如何系统性研究学术造假产业链

16:35 学术造假对咱普通人有什么影响呢

20:29 谁该为学术造假负责

21:12 从理解做学问，是怎样一种职业开始

24:28 中国学术圈现状

30:39 欧洲学术圈现状（德国）

33:19 这套学术评价体系，适合什么样的人

41:20 多少博士，能最终成为教授

42:38 所以，到底是谁在造假？

48:36 造假调查：斯坦福真实&嘉宾分享

60:24爆火全网的“随机数生成器”指控，其实有很大风险

67:57 耿同学，冤枉了学者？？

69:38 对学术造假吹哨人，是否需要约束

72:21 学术体系，该如何改进

74:49 方案一：更多钱，抽奖式经费申请？

80:39 方案二：更少钱，让领域更纯粹？

87:10 所以，为什么学术的象牙塔里，丑闻层出不穷？

87:45 一些小心翼翼地时事评论

📃 本期播客提到的文献素材传送门：

• 假论文，已经成为一项产业： www.pnas.org

被撤回的论文由少数编辑负责审稿：“The 45 PLOS ONE editors whom we were able to flag due to the anomalous rate at which they accepted retracted or PubPeer commented publications or had their submissions handled by other flagged editors comprise only 0.25% of all editors. These individuals edited 1.3% of all articles published in PLOS ONE by 2024 but 30.2% of retracted articles. More than half of these editors (25 of 45) also authored articles retracted by PLOS ONE.”

论文撤回比例集中于特定子学科 ：“Consistent with most scientists’ expectations concerning egregious errors or scientific fraud, for CRISPR-Cas9, we find that the rate of retractions is only about 0.1%. The rate of retractions increases from tRNA (peak of ∼1% for tRNA and cancer) to circular RNAs (peak of ∼2.5%), miRNAs (peak of ∼4% for miRNA and cancer), and lncRNAs (peak of ∼4%). We also find higher rates of retractions for subfields focused on cancer than on development.Retraction rates can be highly variable across publishers for articles in these subfields. Indeed, for studies concerning “lncRNAs” and “miRNAs and cancer” published in certain journals, the retraction rate exceeds 10%, while for some other journals the rate is close to zero, far below expectation.”

假论文数量增长，远高于真论文：”We also find that the number of retracted articles has been increasing exponentially over the last 30 y (Fig. 5B). Remarkably, and testifying to the enormous impact of postpublication review efforts, we find the number of articles with PubPeer comments has also been increasing exponentially. To provide perspective, we note that the number of retracted articles and PubPeer-commented articles has been doubling every 3.3 y and every 3.6 y, respectively, while the total number of publications has been doubling every 15.0 y. ”

• 英国皇家学会2010报告《科学世纪：确保我们未来的繁荣》，涉及到博士就业流向： royalsociety.org

0.45%的博士生，最后会成为博士：图1.6

学者中的男女比例失衡：“Despite progress in the past decade, ensuring a diverse scientific workforce remains a challenge. Women are still under-represented in the latter stages of scientific careers, particularly in the physical sciences. While 35% of all researchers in science- related disciplines are women, the proportion falls to 30% for lecturers, 21 % for senior lecturers and just 11 % for professors.”

• Marc 斯坦福学术造假事件调查报告： boardoftrustees.stanford.edu ：“Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did not have actual knowledge of any manipulation of research data, did not have a material role in the preparation of the data and/or figures that have been publicly challenged, and was not in a position where a reasonable scientist would be expected to have detected any such misconduct.”； “The Scientific Panel has concluded that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne did not have actual knowledge of the manipulation of research data that occurred in his lab and was not reckless in failing to identify such manipulation prior to publication.”

• 因为人的参与，随机数就并不随机： pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ：“Previously, the phenomenon of end digit (ED) preference has been described for several measurement types in social sciences, public health, and epidemiology”， www.researchgate.net：“ An experiment is described that examines whether consumers make the false assumption that claims using sharp numbers are less likely to be estimates (i.e., are more factual) than those using round numbers and, if so, whether this makes sharp-number claims more believable.”

• 抽签式科研基金发放： www.nature.com ：“If reviewers can’t reliably tell the difference between top grant proposals, why should they pretend they can? A new wave of funders is turning to lotteries to break the tie.”

• 科普/记者频道 Christophe - I tried to buy a scientific paper： www.youtube.com

本期音乐：片尾曲 Battles and Wasteland by Neo Retros

封面设计特别感谢：wow lab

小红书账号：梦妮爱读文献 （ID：4196506308）