个人在科研职业活动中的行为表现

    Some types of bad practice seem to do their best to avoid giving credit to other workers. Others, however, which are strangely more common and subtle, seem to arise from the fact that we all would like to be credited with something innovative. Thus often one sees: "similar work has been done before by X, but in that work they did not consider Y" in a context where: the work concerned is very new, interesting, has great potential, etc...; the author developed it independently; the author finds that someone else has also developed this, and already published it. There then emerges the temptation to find some differences between the author's and the already published work, and to claim (implicitly!) that these are substantial. I think this happens so much that a significant minority seem to accept it as acceptable practice. Well it isn't. Don't say this: "Smith et al (06) have published a new crossover operator based on similar notions to ours, but our formulation is much more general and we consider more realistic problems." Say this: "Smith et al (06) have independently published essentially the same idea. In their case they test a form. of it suitable for bin-packing problems, while in our case we adopt a straightforward generalisation of the operator that enables us to apply it to constrained spanning tree problems."

     试着翻译一下。写文章时容易犯的一个错误就是鄙视他人的科研结果，或者说弱化别人科研结果的重要性......因此人们经常说：“X曾经做过类似的工作， 但是他没有考虑到Y”。如果我做的工作，别人已经发表过了，或者非常类似的idea。那么我很可能会找出某些不同出来，并且声称这些不同时非常重要的工 作。......所以，不要说：“Smith 等人(06)已经发表过一篇新的交叉操作的文章，文中的观点跟我们的观点非常类似，但是我们的公式更具有一般性，而且我们考虑了更加真实的问题。”  而应该这么说：“Smith 等人(06)已经独立发表了本质上一样的观点。他们的实验表明这个观点适用于装箱问题，而我们则采用了操作器的直接推广，这个推广使的它可以用到约束生成 树问题上去。”