Abstract:

[Purposes] This paper aims to analyze the role of contention papers in promoting discipline development based on case studies so as to explore the ways to promote academic contention in Chinese scientific journals. [Methods] Taking GM food safety as an example, we selected search terms that could represent GM technical safety and used them to retrieve papers on the ScienceDirect platform. After removing the repeated and unrelated papers, we made an in-depth analysis on the chronological change of papers and typical contention papers related to GM food safety. [Finding] The number of research papers on GM technical safety increased explosively with the turning points when the papers by Pusztai et al. in 1999 and Séralini et al. in 2012 were published. After publication of Pusztai et al. in 1999, people debated intensely on their experimental design, while Séralini et al. in 2012 greatly improved that and made the experiment more rigorous. The proportion of people supporting GM food safety in 2012's contention increased by 18% compared to that in 1999. [Conclusions] Contention papers not only could promote an increase of relevant studies and academic prosperity, but also could keep studies more deeply and make people's understanding of controversial issues more scientific. In sum, scientific journals should be responsible to positively build platforms for academic contention, and serve active academic atmosphere and discipline development.

Key words: Academic contention, Scientific journal, Discipline development, GM food safety

摘要：

【目的】 通过典型的争鸣论文分析,探讨争鸣对学科发展的推动作用,为期刊开展学术争鸣提供借鉴。【方法】 以转基因食品安全争鸣为例,首先筛选出能够概括转基因技术安全的代表性检索词,以Elsevier全文数据库为检索平台,利用选定的检索词进行文献检索,人工剔除重复和不相关文献后,对文献数量时序变化和其中典型转基因食品安全争鸣论文进行深入分析。【结果】 以1999年Pusztai等和2012年Séralini等在转基因食品安全中争议较大的论文发表时间为节点,转基因技术安全研究论文数量呈现爆发式增长;Séralini等针对1999年Pusztai等的研究方法引发的质疑进行了明显的改进;Séralini等研究引发的争鸣中“挺转”学者占比与Pusztai等相比增加了18%。【结论】 争鸣论文不仅能推进研究及讨论、促进学术繁荣,还能推动科学研究向纵深发展,促使学术界对有争议问题的认识更加科学。科技期刊对有争议研究应肩负起应有的责任,积极搭建学术争鸣平台,更好地为活跃学术气氛和推动学科发展服务。

关键词: 学术争鸣, 科技期刊, 学科发展, 转基因食品安全