然后，科学杂志经过“调查”，产生了哪封广为流传的 "not acceptable"回复。下面是2001年大家举报方舟子抄袭时，Science 对其他举报者的统一答复。我因与Science 有约定，不对第三方公开双方通信，所以，仅披露美国东部某博士转给我的Science EMAIL
From: Jeffrey Mervis <jmervis@aaas.org>
To: ******@***.edu
Subject: re: Fang letter
Date: Tue30 Oct 2001 14:10:09 -0500
Dear Dr. XX
The editor has asked me to reply to your concern about the article by Shimin Fang that appeared in Southern Weekend. We at Science have spend a good deal of time looking into the question of whether his article plagiarizes the manuscript that appeared in the 14 September issue of Science by Greene et al. Although I do not read or speak Chinese, I have had access to an English version of Fang's article, translated by an independent source.
We believe that Fang's article would not be considered acceptable journalism in the United States. He did not give the names of the researchers who carried out the research or the journal in which it was published, nor did he include quotes from other scientists. All these aspects would be essential for a journalistic article in a US publication.
However, a charge of plagiarism would be difficult to uphold since Fang did say the work was performed by researchers at Princeton University, and--unless the translation I have is wrong--he neither implied that the work was his own by witing in the first person nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.
As you point out, the issue is an important one. And we certainly appreciate queries like yours that require us to examine our practices.
I hope that this clarifies our view of the matter. Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with us.
我问Jeff是如何调查的，被告知是科学在北京的记者将方舟子在南方周末的文章请人翻译成英文，再将此回锅英译文寄回科学杂志，科学杂志将Greene的原文和方舟子文章的回锅英译文对比后，得出：nor directly copied the language in the Science paper.！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
所以：所有翻译家们，请马上都变成作家：-）谁敢说你抄袭，让他把你翻译的书再翻译回去!看有没有copy the luanguage directly：-））））下面我附上和贾鹤鹏、熊蕾的通信作为佐证，请注意红色字体的句子。
熊蕾:
这是美国科学杂志记者贾鹤鹏【注：后承包科学新闻，自任主编，伙同方玄昌连续五期污蔑诽谤我和我的老师裘法祖院士】给我的信件中关于你的内容: As for whether the article Fang wrote from Science in 2001 was a plagiarism, Science has made an investigation and Xiong Lei of Xinhua Agency was in the investigation team, so the decision was apparently not based on a wrong procedure -- first translating Fang's article into English and then compare it with the original English -- Xiong has good English and Chinese and knowledge of ethics, so she could have decided whether it was a plagiarism.
I hope my explanation could help you find out some facts about our work, but if you are still unsatisfactory, you might write a letter to the editor for a complain. You can submit a letter online at http://www.submit2science.org/ws/begin.asp.
方是民抄袭科学杂志的文章白纸黑字摆在那儿，我完全同意科学记者对你的评价：你中英文俱佳，深晓学术道德，完全能判断方是民是否抄袭（Xiong has good English and Chinese and knowledge of ethics, so she could have decided whether it was a plagiarism.），但你在“无奇不有”一文里弯弯绕了半天为方是民抄袭遮遮掩掩，那你写这篇“斩钉截铁掷地有声”的[邹成鲁：对剽窃者应当曝光]干什么？算什么？我半年前就公开声明过：如果邹成鲁院士与何祚庥院士一致认为方舟子不是抄袭，我无条件接受并立马向全国人民道歉并永远退出学术界。可惜，一直到邹先生逝世，他们也没敢说：-）你能不能痛快点？你，别扯别人，认为方舟子剽窃抄袭没有？Yes, or No? 非常简单。如果你不敢，不愿作出判断，我建议你删掉[邹成鲁：对剽窃者应当曝光]一文，免得别人用鲁迅和毛主席都喜欢的那句话来形容你。我也建议你不要用“方舟子是否剽窃科学自有科学杂志来管”来搪塞，否则新语丝就得关门方舟子就没饭吃了：-）至于方舟子最近发表在《经济观察报》上的抄袭文章《现代药物是怎么开发出来的》，我就不麻烦你了.^&^。