隱匿已發表論文以求量產策略所導致之負面效應：TSSCI期刊論文個案分析

The Detrimental Effects of the Lack of Full Disclosure When Researchers Publish in Multiple Journals: The Case Study of a TSSCI Paper

劉任昌(Jen-Chang Liu) ； 葉馬可(Mark Yeats)

《科學與人文研究》 3卷3期 (2015/12) Pp. 1-29

https://doi.org/10.6535/JSH2015123301

摘要

理論上，教師絕無對學生隱匿知識之行為；同樣地，教師或研究人員絕對不應在著作中隱匿資訊。但事實上，學者可能為膨脹研究績效指標，而在著作中隱匿資訊。隱匿資訊是違背學術規範的行為，但行政院科技部「研究人員學術倫理規範」明文規定，以不同語言發表相似性論文，卻未引用前作的行為，不算違背學術倫理。本研究主張：該條文誘使研究人員隱匿已發表著作，誤導期刊評審與讀者對後作原創性之判斷。研究人員可能再類推此可資利用的量產機制，而發揮於對微調後作之樣本期間、範圍、參考文獻等，甚至竄改內容，以達到躲避違背學術倫理指控，卻可量產新作的目的。研究人員應該盡職於精益求精創作之心力，卻消耗在取巧量產，將導致著作品質下降，甚至產生錯誤，且傳遞錯誤的研究成果。本研究透過分析刊登在TSSCI期刊的真實案例，闡述研究者隱匿與量產之過程，也證明該系列論文聲稱之貢獻是錯誤的，而印證本文之主張：研究者與研究制度對學術程序規範之漠視，容易導致研究品質之瑕疵。本文強烈呼籲科技部檢討「研究人員學術倫理規範」內容，也檢討TSSCI期刊之審核。

關鍵字

管理學報 ； 學術倫理 ； 學術規範 ； 科技部 ； 技術趨同 ； 社會網路 ； 引用 ； 自我抄襲

並列摘要

Theoretically, teachers will not conceal knowledge from their students; similarly, teachers or researchers should never withhold information from the readers of their academic writings. However, some scholars, with the end of inflating their performance index, can be less than transparent when providing information in their research works. Such behavior violates academic ethics. The Ministry of Science and Technology does not forbid a researcher from publishing two similar papers in different languages without mutual citation. We claim that this regulation tempts some researchers to hide similar works published previously so as to mislead readers and referees regarding their originality. Based on this regulation, some researchers may go further by revising previously published papers to generate new works. By failing to cite their previous papers, such researchers are attempting to mislead readers. Methods that some researchers employ include changes to sample periods, sample ranges, and reference lists. Some researchers go as far as falsifying results so as to avoid possible accusations that academic ethics have been violated when producing multiple papers. Researchers are supposed to endeavor to produce a complete, transparent, and error-free body of work, instead of wasting resources in the pursuit of manipulating the number of published articles. Such behavior diminishes the quality of papers that are published and can even lead to the circulation of disinformation. We demonstrate our proclamation through analyzing a series of published papers. The TSSCI-listed Journal of Management is one journal that has published papers that, in our view, cross the ethical line. We demonstrate how some authors of multiple papers have not given full disclosure concerning similar previously published works. In particular, we prove that the main results of these papers are incorrect. Hence, we illustrate that the ignorance of academic norms by researchers and institutes tends to produce and circulate incorrect results. We appeal to the Ministry of Science and Technology to revise existing regulations and scrutinize the TSSCI system.

並列關鍵字

Journal of Management ； academic ethics ； academic norm ； Ministry of Science and Technology ； technological isomorphism ； social network analysis ； citation ； self-plagiarism

參考文獻

翁順裕（2007）。從社會網絡分析觀點探討技術的趨同性—以保險商業方法專利為例。國立雲林科技大學企管系博士論文。

陳光華、陳雅琦（2014）。探索人文學社會學者研究產出之總合軌跡：以臺灣大學人文社會高等研究院為例。圖書資訊學刊，12(2)，81-116。"

賴奎魁、翁順裕（2005）。保險也有專利嗎？政大智慧財產評論，3(1)，1-22。

DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

Lai, K.K. and C.S. Weng (2007). The isomorphic development of insurance. PICMET 2007 Proceedings, 1564-1570.