.

.

你质问我从何处得到你剽窃我的文章达到90%的结论，抗议说绝不会超过50%。好吧，我简捷明快地回答你：显然，我从未见识到你的全部文章，包括你递送的文本！你应该记得寄给我你文章的译文，它看起来也不是全文。因此，如果我被误导你的文章中到底有多少窃自我的书，你跟其他人一样难辞其咎。

.

不管怎样，至少我们现在讨论的是你的文章的内容究竟有多少取自我的书。对此，自称你的支持者之一（见所附电邮）还将之定量在60%。不管我们怎么看这个问题，所有人，包括你自己，都同意你的文章有相当一部分取自我的书。因此，问题就归结于，到底多少才是不适当的？你已经承认，在你最初博文中就应当因为论点论据雷同而引用我作为出处。如果雷同程度如此高，你又凭什么不承认自己剽窃与侵犯版权？将之变为公开讨论的原因，恰恰是因为需要理清多少雷同就是不适当的，而你所承认的雷同正好有助于我对你的指控。

.

你还宣称我自定了剽窃与侵犯版权的标准。对此我严正指出，我指控你剽窃与侵犯版权的标准并非我自定的。对这些问题，每一个重要的杂志、每一个教育机构都有指南并且都非常相似。如果中国学者，比如你这样的，希望参与世界科学文化，就必须学会遵守这些指南所立定的规则。我为你附上美国化学协会的标准。你应当注意到，不仅仅是你无权复制我的文章，甚至我自己都不能从我的发表文章中复制超出400字的内容，也不能再使用我自己的图表，除非取得杂志的允许。版权不仅保护作者的权益，也保护出版商的权益！这就涉及到我们的讨论中还没有论及的一个要点，这就是你不仅剽窃与（或）侵犯了我的文章的版权，也剽窃侵犯了牛津大学出版社的版权，该出版商出版了含有我的文章的书。你从他们那里获得了使用我的材料的许可没有？

.

你对这一问题的迄今为止的回应是你是打假专家，你知道自己没有剽窃我，也没有侵犯我的版权。然而你拒绝提供你的鉴定标准。这不仅是让我、也让中国的人民无法了解，当你下结论确认一个人造假时究竟采取的什么标准。这其中还有更进一步的问题：即使你能回避公布你的标准，你也不能成为你自己案件的法官。实际上，在任何案例中你都不能同时扮演指控者、法官、与陪审团的角色，而那正是你试图获取的权力。

.

现在我们进入了问题的中心。我对你是否偷窃了我的部分作品的担心，远不如我对你自封为中国造假行为的不容争论并不受制约的监督者的担心。没有任何个人应当拥有你所攫取的权力。你（我也一样！）拥有绝对的权利、乃至绝对的义务，去揭露任何造假，但是你无权决定你的指控是否成立。你应当看到，如果你有此权力，那我也应该有。如此，我说你剽窃侵权你就剽窃侵权了。你显然不愿陷入这样的控案，我也不愿意。但是你必须从这个争议中学到一点，就是你不能拥有超越别人的权力；是否造假须由无偏见、无相关利益的中立者来决定，无论是在这一案例中，还是其它你指控别人或者你受指控的案例中。我不知道究竟在中国、或者在世界其它地方谁能决定不经允许可以而使用多少我的作品，但我确信那不是你！此时此处我对此事的最大期望是，未来中国将如何处理造假事件（比如剽窃与侵犯版权），以及谁拥有此类事件的裁决权，这个案子能给带来显著的变化。

.

What a joke! You threaten to no longer participate in this dialogue if I insist on making your emails to me, and mine in return, public? In the first place, what is the point of public letters, such as those that I have written, if they are not public? In the second place, since you have not participated in this discussion at all for quite some time, what difference does it make? Third, I thought your goal was to help China identify and reveal frauds wherever and whenever they occur, so why are you refusing to participate in an open discussion about what constitutes plagiarism and copyright infringement? And finally, and most importantly, how can you have the gall to demand that I keep private your emails to me when you have been attacking me and on your website and in the Chinese press behind my back this entire time? So, yes, this letter is going to everyone, and you can do as you like. You don't play by anyone's rules but your own anyway?

You ask where I got the figure that you have plagiarized as much as 90% of my article in yours and object that it could not possibly be more than 50%. Well, there's a simple answer: I apparently have never been shown your entire article, even by you! You will recall sending me your translation of your article. It does not appear to be complete. So if I have been misled as to the amount my material that may be in your article, you are as much to blame as anyone.

In any event, at least we are talking about how much of my article appears in yours. On this point, one of your self-proclaimed supporters (email attached) actually puts the amount of your article that matches mine at 60%. No matter how we look at it, everyone, including you, agrees that a substantial portion of your article is drawn from mine. So the issue becomes how much is too much? You have already admitted that there was sufficient commonality that you should have cited me as the source of your arguments in your original blog. So if there is that much commonality, how can you deny both plagiarism and copyright infringement? The reason for making this a public debate is precisely because the issue of how much is too much needs to be hashed out and your own admissions certainly help make my case against you.

You also claim that I am making up my own definitions of plagiarism and copyright infringement. I insist on pointing out with regard to this question that the criteria I am using in accusing you of plagiarism and copyright infringement are not something I have made up. Every major journal and every educational institution has guidelines regarding these points, all of which are very similar. If Chinese scholars, such as yourself, expect to participate in the worldwide culture of science, you must learn to abide by the standards set forth in these guidelines. I have attached one such set from the American Chemical Society. You will note that not only do YOU not have the right to reproduce my article, even I do not have the right to use more than 400 words from my own publication, nor can I use my own illustrations, without written permission from the journal. Copyright not only protects the author of a work, but also the publisher of that work! This raises a point that has not yet been discussed in our correspondence, which is that you have not only plagiarized and/or breached the copyright on my article, but also Oxford University Press, which published the book in which my chapter appears. Did you get their written permission to use my material?



Your only response to that issue so far has been to say that you are an expert on fraud and you know that you have not plagiarized me or violated my copyright. Yet you refuse to reveal the criteria you are using in making that decision, which not only leaves me in the dark, but also leaves the people of China in the dark about how you reach your conclusions regarding the fraudulent behaviors of anyone you accuse. And there is an additional problem: even if you get around to divulging your criteria, you can't be the judge in your own case. Indeed, you can't be the accuser, judge and jury in any fraud case and yet that is exactly the power you have attempted to accrue to yourself.

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I am far less worried about whether you have stolen some of my work than I am worried that you have set yourself as an unassailable and unregulated monitor of fraud in China. No individual should ever have the power that you have taken upon yourself. You have every right, and indeed every responsibility, as do I!, to point out fraud wherever you think it occurs, but you do not have the right to decide whether your accusations are valid. For you see, if you have that right, then so do I, in which case you would be guilty of plagiarism and copyright violations just because I said so. You clearly don't want that to be the case (nor do I), but you must learn from this controversy that you cannot have that power over others, either. The determination of fraud must lie in the hands of unbiased, disinterested parties, both in this case and in any other case you might bring or be accused of. I'm not sure who in China, or in the world, should decide how much of my work you should be permitted to use without permission, but I do know it is not you! My fondest hope at this point in time is that our controversy will lead to substantial changes in how fraudulent practices such as plagiarism and copyright infringement are handled in China and in who has the authority to handle such issues.