论政府自利性与法学研究的学术腐败

法学研究的学术腐败由于法学学科的特殊学科地位与作用,使得其危害性远远大于其他学科的学术腐败,而政府作为国家的执行机关,其自利性与法学研究者自我利益相结合产生的学术腐败,造成的危害性不但危害了法学研究的科学性,更重要的是会对我国法治建设进程造成重大危害,本文就政府自利性与法学研究学术腐败的相结合原因进行深入分析.     

惯习与路径:高校学术腐败的制度分析

关于高校学术腐败的成因与治理,主要集中于个人道德品质、学术队伍利益化、学术腐败的成本低廉、学术评价机制不完善、高校管理体制缺陷等几个方面,少有对学术腐败形成的过程及建构的腐败结构进行研究。通过制度分析的方法,对高校现行的科研项目获得过程、学术成果评价机制的研究表明,高校学术队伍存在"非正式组织"的评价体系,科研课题立项、学术论文发表都形成了自有一套的发生路径,学术腐败在某种程度已成为惯习。如何破除这一惯习的樊篱,让学术回归学术,我们仍然需要在制度建设上进行突破。     

从学术腐败谈科学规范机制

学术腐败现象概述 近几年来,“学术腐败”成为学术界的一个热门话题,并且已经被列入全国政协会议的议题,可见人们对此的关注。但何谓“学术腐败”,至今尚无一个明确的界定。学术界以及社会公众似乎对此并不介意,他们更为关注的是学术腐败的种种不良表现,诸如“伪学术”活动的猖撅,学术被金钱、权力污染等腐蚀社会风气的严重不良后果。无论硕士、博士还是博士后点的建点或导师的遴选、评估过程中的不正之风;有职有权者利用公款出书,出了书,评职称便有了     

对当代中国高校学术腐败的反思

本文阐述了改革开放以来,中国高等教育所取得的举世瞩目的成就,以及为社会主义建设做出的巨大贡献。进而提出在中国高等教育取得可喜成绩的同时,也存在着严重的问题,其中学术腐败问题就是影响高校发展的重大问题之一。并从学术腐败产生的社会危害着手,分析了学术腐败的起因,提出要从根本上解决学术腐败,必须从基础教育抓起,将德育作为就业、考核的重要指标,避免学术行政化,明确监督机制的对策与建议。     

高校教师队伍存在的问题与对策

高校教师队伍存在的问题主要表现为学术腐败,权钱至上,师德滑坡等几个方面,学术腐败包括论文论著抄袭,编造数据,项目奖励造假三个方面。权钱至上包括炫耀财富,贪婪敛财,学术权势化等。师德滑坡包括生活作风不检点,对学生不负责任,心胸狭隘等。根治这些问题需要加强学术管理,严格教师规范,去除行政化管理模式等多种手段。     

公开化方能鼓励学术创新、遏制学术腐败

学术不端是阻碍创新人才成长的重要原因，学术腐败更是从根本上破坏了创新人才成长的基础条件。在角色复合的状态下，科研机构、高校“双肩挑”的各级领导都会遇到如何脚踏实地做好自己的学问，如何出于公心用好手中权力的双重挑战。对学术腐败末端治理的局限性很大，其投资大、运行费用高、治标而非治本的弊端日益显露。在学术成果的生产领域也应当采用“清洁生产”的理念，从内部运行机制上防止学术不端在内部滋生再向社会蔓延。     

论网络出版对学术研究的推动

网络出版对学术研究的推动表现在多方面：推动学术传播，促进学术交流，促进学术创新与突破，推动各学科之间的开放和互补，有利于防止学术腐败等。加强网络出版的维护是推动学术研究的价值选择。     

巩固繁荣成果重在加快哲学社会科学立法管理

哲学社会科学发展需要制度和环境的保障,以使其繁荣局面得以维护和持续发展,因此,科学规范哲学社会科学发展,实行科研管理法制化和制度化,提到了议事日程。为此,必须着手深入研究我国哲学社会科学立法问题,以从制度法规层面探索建立确保我国哲学社会科学健康繁荣发展的长效机制;保护我国哲学社会科学研究成果的知识产权;确立其研究工作的地位和职能作用,明确其研究和管理工作的规范要求,形成哲学社会科学的评价和管理体系,消除学术腐败问题。     

学术期刊的权利与责任

一向冷清的学术期刊,其内在的社会责任因与近些年我国对"学术腐败"问题的揭发、讨论有关而备受学界、媒体、管理层以至社会关注与重视.这未尝就是坏事.它迫使我们期刊中人努力澄清对学术期刊社会责任的模糊认识.     

学术期刊的学术信用建设

当前,学术信仰缺失甚至学术腐败,呈愈演愈烈之势.劣化的学术环境,无疑也起到了推波助澜的作用.劣化的学术环境表现为,宏观环境层面,整个社会的大面积的道德退步和信用缺失,连带与影响到学术生存环境;中观环境层面,政府插手民间性质的学术研究,所制定与形成的一系列令人眼花缭乱的学术研究评价规范,违背了学术成长的自然规律,拔苗助长,导致研究者急功近利,急于求成,甚至学术私欲膨胀,进而出现违背学术道德之举;微观环境层面,则表现为学术期刊在稿件选取方面对学术标准的漠视.     

中国古代贪官惩戒制度给我们的启示——浅谈我国现行法官惩戒制度的完善

司法公正是社会公正的最后一道防线,为了保证司法公正,防治法官滥权,中国历代都高度重视对司法官员不法行为的惩治,其主要特点有二:一是重视对法官惩戒的立法,立法内容丰富详尽;二是重典治吏,对法官采用严刑峻法。从法官惩戒制度入手,分析古代法官惩戒制度、措施、程序,以期完善一个使法官不能腐败的制度、不敢腐败的惩戒体系、不愿腐败的有尊严的氛围,这对完善现行的法官惩戒制度具有一定的借鉴意义。     

Sources of Corruption in Authoritarian Regimes*

Objectives. We seek to investigate the determinants of corruption in authoritarian polities. We hypothesize that corruption in nondemocratic settings will be greater where the ruling group is personalistic rather than a political party or a military clique and that it will be greater where rulers expect to remain in power longer. We construct a new operationalization of the selectorate theory advanced by Bueno de Mesquita et al. Methods. We use cross‐sectional statistical analysis (OLS) to examine a sample of 40‐odd authoritarian regimes as of 2000. Results. Our results indicate that personalistic and personalistic‐hybrid regimes are more prone to corruption than single‐party and military regimes and also that rulers who expect to remain in power for longer are less corrupt. Corroborating previous studies, we document that the availability of natural resources and higher levels of institutionalized autocracy are associated with greater corruption and that wealthier countries experience less corruption. Our results are consistent with previous studies, including that of Bueno de Mesquita et al., but because of our reconstruction of selectorate theory in terms of real‐world regime types, they are more easily interpretable. Conclusions. Our study sheds light on why African countries are so notoriously corrupt. The personalistic authoritarian regimes that have arisen there in the postcolonial period appear especially prone to corruption, whereas military and single‐party dictatorships are less corrupt.     

Three Paradigms in Lu Xun Research and Contemporary Value Options

鲁迅研究从来不是单纯的个体作家分析，而是对其人其文所表征的一种文化属性的理解；对于鲁迅研究的评价也从来不是一种单纯的学术史的评价，而是与一个时代的价值取向相关联的社会评价。当下，在学术逻辑回归与学术民间性凸显的态势下，鲁迅研究的立场和价值评价出现了明显分野。同时，作为一种被过度阐释的显学，鲁迅研究存在着研究的重复性和细小化倾向。以史料挖掘为主的历史性研究、以知识阐释和审美评价为主的学问化研究、以追求思想的当下意义与价值为主的当代性研究，是鲁迅研究的三种基本范式。每一种研究范式都是对鲁迅丰富复杂的精神世界的开掘和理解，同时又都存在着某种程度的悖论和不同的价值功能。     

Three Paradigms in Lu Xun Research and Contemporary Value Options

Research on Lu Xun is never simply the analysis of an individual writer, but constitutes an understanding of the cultural attributes represented by Lu Xun himself and his writings. Likewise, the evaluation of research on Lu Xun is never a simple evaluation of academic history, but rather a social evaluation associated with the value orientations of those times. At present, with the return of academic logic and the growing tendency toward private research, a noteworthy divergence of standpoints and evaluations of Lu Xun research has emerged. At the same time, as a prominent discipline that has been over-interpreted, research on Lu Xun is demonstrating a tendency toward redundancy and triviality. Three fundamental paradigms are commonly employed in research on Lu Xun: historical research that attempts to explore historical materials; academic research that focuses on knowledge interpretation and aesthetic evaluation; and contemporary research that pursues the contemporary meaning and values of Lu Xun’s ideas. Each paradigm offers an insight into and understanding of Lu Xun’s rich and complex spiritual world; each presents a paradox of one kind or the other; and each performs different value functions.     

王国维文艺思想研究的世纪考察(上)

王国维是中国现代著名的学术大师,其文艺思想包括天才说、古雅说、游戏说、境界说、优美壮美说、戏曲批评等方面。20世纪学术界对王国维文艺思想的研究是相当充分的。对王国维文艺思想的研究可分为三个历史阶段。在资料的整理出版方面,取得了可喜的成就,为进一步开展研究打下了坚实的基础,但范围过于集中。对王国维各种文艺思想的研究虽异彩纷呈,但研究中还存在一些不足之处:首先,缺乏一种富有深度的综合研究和整体研究。其次,对王国维与中国现代文学批评、白话运动的关系研究不够。最后,研究的视野尚待进一步拓展。     

Conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the ‘unlawful’ status of homosexuality in Britain after 1967

The common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals has a long though controversial history in English law. It was a charge mainly employed against obscenity, procuring prostitution, keeping a disorderly house, public indecency and public mischief. These could be interpreted by the courts as facets of a single offence known as conspiracy to corrupt public morals. The charge was used intermittently in the twentieth century, mainly against the arrangement of prostitution and ‘disorderly houses’ used by homosexual men. It was applied again in 1960 in the Ladies Directory case and was subsequently used against gay men who advertised for friends and partners in the underground magazine International Times (IT). The prosecution of IT was based on the legal principle that certain forms of ‘outrageously immoral’ conduct were in themselves corrupting of public morals, whether such conduct was legal or not. This principle placed male homosexuality in the legal category of ‘unlawful’ or ‘wrongful’ acts. In that sense, even after the decriminalization of homosexuality between men in 1967, it still had an uncertain legal status. Conspiracy to corrupt public morals cast a shadow over early attempts to create a gay civil society that was partly based on magazines and personal advertising. For conservative critics of the 1967 Act, conspiracy charges had the useful effect of curtailing public expressions of homosexuality.     

近十年国内学者关于学术越轨问题的研究综述

学术越轨囊括了学术失范、学术不端和学术腐败的内容,表现为情节轻重不一的违反学术规范、违背科学精神和科学规律的行为。学术越轨的诱发因素包括学术“马太效应”,学术评价体制不完善,学术行政化,学术道德失律,图书馆、期刊社、出版社的不作为以及越轨行为低成本化等。学术越轨不仅影响学者的学术水平和学术声誉,还会损害高校、科研院所的形象和声誉,影响学术界的发展,阻碍社会前进的步伐。防治学术越轨,不仅要实现学术约束机制化、职业伦理制度化、评价体系完善化、终端系统功能化,还要防范研究生的学术越轨行为。目前,关于学术越轨的相关概念尚未达成共识,对学术越轨的防治方法研究不足,研究深度不够。     

中国的马克思主义研究向何处去?

作为一种具有学术性的意识形态 ,在中国的马克思主义 (包括其哲学 )研究目前正面临一种危机———一方面 ,其服务于政治实践的成效在下降 ,另一方面 ,其学术水准已明显逊于一些主要的邻近学科。“向何处去”的问题就此显现出来。要克服危机 ,这种研究就必须走向意识形态取向和学术取向的相对分离———前者完全以改革开放和社会发展的政治需要为转移 ,后者则一心求解这个领域中长期积淀的学理问题 ,二者间可形成一种互补结构。其中 ,学术取向的研究应走向与其他学术领域的深度关联 ,走向与国际论坛的积极互动 ,走向观点独立的反思性探讨 ,走向学理资源的创造性转化。     

Data falsification and question on academic integrity

In this commentary, we argue that plagiarism is not a new problem in academic publishing and data falsification in recent times has received a great attention globally. Due to lack of literature, the objective of this study is to evaluate data falsification and academic integrity. Accordingly, the study presents the academic misconduct (Falsification/Fabrication of data and Concerns/Issues About Data) case of Professor James E. Hunton, a former top ranked accounting professor from Bentley University. The study shows how research fraud/data falsification activity in the academic world lacks honesty and morality. The study offers some recommendations for the detection of plagiarism and academic misconduct. In the age of the Internet and digital era, Crossref, iThenticate, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) would help to detect plagiarism. However, the question remains on detecting data falsification in the academic world.     

Assisting the High Administrative Court in Restricting Too Broad a Concept of Academic Judgment

I have received substantial monetary compensation and a formal apology from my first doctoral school, and a Ph.D. from another university. This essay describes my personal view on discussing the boundaries of academic judgment and research supervision with the ombudsman agency for higher education, and at the High Administrative Court of England and Wales. The Court’s judicial doctrine addresses substantial research accountability matters. It clarifies that although the Court and ombudsman agency must not interfere with academic judgment, not everything done by an academic can be considered as academic judgment. A Ph.D. supervisor can seriously fail to perform his/her duties.