狗吠火車，無啥路用？—再評管理學報論文獎獲獎作品

Dogs Barking at the Train in Vain?-Criticism of another Article Awarded by the Journal of Management as an Outstanding Paper

劉任昌(Jen-Chang Liu) ； 葉馬可(Mark Yeats)

《科學與人文研究》 4卷1期 (2016/06) Pp. 1-46

https://doi.org/10.6535/JSH2016064101

摘要

國立政治大學法律系特聘教授郭明正(2005)指稱：TSSCI 的裁判能力、品質令人質疑，其所導致的學術壟斷、寡占，不只傷害了學術自由，也傷害了學術的發展與提升。然而，上述命題僅是郭明政的推論，學術界尚未發現 TSSCI 壟斷或傷害學術發展的具體證據，致使 TSSCI 標章之主宰力道亦形壯大。有鑑於此，本文承襲學者對管理學報作品之諸多批判，持續檢視另一篇獲得「2012年管理學報論文獎」作品。本文舉發該作品之形式面、學術規範面與實質知識面之瑕疵，尤其是呈現不一致的樣本屬性。本文舉證說明，管理學報刊登著作品質極盡匪夷所思，但作者卻藉此途徑獲得升等、獎助、國家研究經費。若本文之舉證獲得確認，即證明郭明政(2005)之推論正確。本文同時從憲法學角度闡述公開批判學術文化與作品之正當系與公益性，也對國內學術文化與制度提出反思與建議，尤其強烈建議放棄對SSCI或TSSCI等標章認證的壟斷崇拜。本文鼓吹利用多元管道，發表對知名期刊論著或知名教科書的批判與指正，一則實踐教師的著作人格權，再則可形成TSSCI期刊被派閥壟斷或品質沉淪之防治；公開、具體、深度之批判著作也是社會與學術進步之動力，當可構成教師升等與獎助績效之一部分。

關鍵字

核心/邊陲 ； 技術位置 ； 技術深根 ； 技術探索 ； 結構分化 ； 社會網路分析 ； 專利引用 ； 管理學報 ； 科技部 ； 學術倫理

並列摘要

Ming-Cheng Kuo (2005), a renowned scholar of law and Distinguished Professor at NCCU, claimed that TSSCI journals are doubtful with respect to both academic capability and quality. Furthermore, TSSCI journals are controlling the publication opportunities open to scholars in Taiwan, thus monopolizing the academic circle. He further stressed that the TSSCI system would be detrimental to academic freedom and could jeopardize academic development. However, his argument lacked specific proof and we are witnessing the prevailing dominance of the TSSCI in the academic world. In the face of this controversy, this paper succeeded scholars' previous works by criticizing two works published in the Journal of Management and disclosed another similar work awarded by the Journal of Management as an outstanding paper. We proved that this article is full of errors with respect to basic English to Chinese tranlsation capability, academic norms, and erroneous information. In particular, there is a suspicion that the samples used were falsified. Hence, we provide further evidence that some works published in the Journal of Management contain a considerable number of errors, many of them serious. However, the authors have gained positions of power and have been awarded research funds as a result of those same error-ridden articles. If our accusation is upheld, Kuo's (2005) prediction is, accordingly, verified. In addition, we justify the legitimacy and public benefit of our action-the explicit, public, and responsible critique to academic system and academic works-from the tenets of the Constitution. This article provides a retrospective of Taiwan's academic culture and system, and proposes that the principle of placing unquestioning trust in SSCI or TSSCI should be abandoned. We advocate multiple and variant approaches for scholars to publicize their works, in particular works that criticize well-known textbooks and TSSCI papers. In these ways, teachers can better realize their moral right to publish papers. The TSSCI journals should be monitored so as to avoid being dominated by a minority of scholar-tyrants and to put an end erroneous works, as disclosed by this article, being published. The explicit, public, and comprehensive critique of an important academic journal will enhance the advancement of our society and the academic world, on which part of scholars' achievement records are based.

並列關鍵字

Core/Periphery ； Exploitation ； Exploration ； Structural differentiation ； Social network analysis ； Patent citation ； Journal of Management ； Ministry of Science and Technology ； academic ethics

參考文獻

劉任昌、葉馬可 (2014) 。 論文自我抄襲之定義與性質。科學與人文研究 ，3(1)，35 -53 。

Borgatti, S.P. and M.G. Everett (1999). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21(4), 375-395.

Boyd, R., and P.J. Richerson (1985). Culture and the Evolution Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burt, R.S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. Amerian Jouranl of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.