正文
. The conventional means of correction—a letter to the journal concerned—can take months. But there is now an alternative. PubPeer is a website that lets people comment anonymously on research papers and so, in theory, helps purge the scientific literature of erroneous findings more speedily.
许多科学研究都是有缺陷的，这一原因大多是由于缺乏方法论造成的。但有时，它也可能沦为一场彻头彻尾的欺诈。常规修正的方法如向杂志社发送信件，这一过程往往需要历时数月。但现在有另一种选择。PubPeer是一个让人们匿名评论研究论文的网站，理论上有助于加速清除科学文献中的错误。
outright fraud ：明目张胆的欺诈行为
Since its launch in 2012, PubPeer has alerted scientists to mistakes and
image manipulation
in papers, and exposed cases of misconduct. But it has also attracted criticism,
not least
from journal editors, some of whom argue
anonymity
’s cloak lets vendettas flourish unchecked. Now the site is embroiled in a court case that tests the limits of free speech under
America’s First Amendment
, and may define what it is permissible for researchers to say online and anonymously about science.
PubPeer网站自2012创办以来为学者警示错误、为论文提供图像处理并揭露不端行为。但其中也不乏反对之声，尤其是杂志编辑们的不满。一些编辑认为在匿名的庇护下学术间争斗将会不可抑制的泛滥。现在该网站卷入据美国宪法第一修正案检验言论自由限制的诉讼案件，并且这一案件的结果可能会重新定义科学界在线匿名评论的界限。
image manipulation： 图像处理
not least ：尤其
anonymity ：
n.匿名
America’s First Amendment： 美国宪法第一修正案
The proceedings centre on discussions that began on the site in November 2013. These highlighted apparent similarities between images showing the results of different experiments in papers by Fazlul Sarkar, a cancer researcher who was then based at Wayne State University in Detroit. Dr Sarkar alleges that certain commenters
insinuated
he was guilty of scientific fraud. The comments, he says, together with anonymous e-mails sent to the University of Mississippi, cost him the offer of a professorship there. In October 2014 he sued the commenters for
defamation
and
subpoenaed
PubPeer to disclose their identities. A court is now expected to decide whether the site will be forced to do so.
事件开始于2013年11月的网站评论。来自底特律韦恩州立大学的癌症研究人员Fazlul Sarkar发表论文，关于高度明显相似的图像表明不同课题的实验结果。Sarkar博士称某些批评者暗示他科研造假。他认为这些评论，连同之前寄到密西西比大学的匿名邮件，使他失去了学校教授职位的邀请。2014年10月，他以诽谤罪起诉这些评论者，并传唤PubPeer网站要求公开他们的身份。法院如今就网站是否应该公布评论者进行审理。
insinuate v.暗示
defamation n.诽谤
subpoenaed v.传讯
The American Civil Liberties Union has taken on the case on PubPeer’s behalf. Its lawyer, Alex Abdo, says that the anonymity of PubPeer’s commenters is protected by American law unless Dr Sarkar can provide evidence that their statements are false and have damaged his reputation. Evidence filed by PubPeer from John Krueger, an image-analysis expert, states the images in question “did not depict different experiments as they purported to” or contained other “
irregularities
”, and may have been
manipulated
. Mr Abdo asserts that the comments identified by Dr Sarkar are not defamatory. Therefore PubPeer should not be forced to disclose the commenters’ identities.
美国民权同盟承接该案并为PubPeer辩护。其律师Alex Abdo表示，PubPeer网站上评论者的匿名性受到美国法律的保护，除非Sarkar博士可以提供证据证明这些评论是伪造的并损害了他的名誉。一位名为John Krueger的图像处理专家申请为PubPeer网站提供证据，他表示这些受到质疑的图像并未描述出不同的实验结果或包含了其他的“违规之处”，并且图像可能已经被篡改。Abdo先生坚称关于Sarkar博士研究的评论不具有诽谤性，因此PubPeer网站不应被强制公开评论者的身份。
