【學苑專訊】香港大學社會工作及社會行政學系高級講師羅明輝及香港理工大學協理副校長、應用社會科學系講座教授石丹理的合撰論文有自我抄襲之嫌，於 2014 年 4 月被期刊撤回。
據明報報道[1]，該篇被撤回的論文名為 “Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program in Hong Kong Based on Different Cohorts”，主要檢討馬會資助主導的「共創成長路」計劃，於 2012 年刊登在國際學術期刊 “The Scientific World Journal（TSWJ）” 中，而羅明輝高級講師為第一作者，石丹理講座教授為合著者。根據明報的電郵查詢，TSWJ的出版機構Hindawi Publishing Corporation研究誠信組（Research Integrity Team） 於2013 年12 月收到有關文章涉自我抄襲的電郵，故檢視文章及徵詢編委會以調查事件。結果發現該論文跟於 2011 年 3月 31 日刊載於國際學術期刊Research on Social Work Practice（RSWP）的網站，同樣由羅明輝高級講師及石丹理講座教授共同撰寫的論文 “Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program: Project P.A.T.H.S.” 非常相似。儘管被撤回的文章於 2011 年 11 月 6 日提交，兩人卻沒有於論文中引述被指相似並於 RSWP 刊載的論文。基於對版權問題的考慮，TSWJ的出版機構撤回涉事文章。
兩者回應明報的查詢時，羅明輝高級講師承認，有參考、抄寫及修改過另一文章的數個文件檔案，是次事件只是無心之失。 而石丹理講座教授則指認為此事件有合理的解釋，羅明輝高級講師所說的「抄」只是無意地複寫了舊資料，並非故意的疏忽，不明白但尊重期刊方面的決定。
兩人續表示，被撤回的論文的最終版本於 2011 年 3 月 31 日前已完成，其間沒有改動，因決定推遲出版該文章，故至同年11月向 TSWJ 的學術編輯提加。惟其時的另一篇文章仍未刊載於 RSWP 的網站上，故未有引述其文章。他們續稱，沒有收過文章已在 RSWP 網站上發表的通知。雖然他們曾向TSWJ建議發出勘誤（Erratum）通告，希望在參考文獻補回被指相似的文章的引述資料，此建議獲當時已離任的學術編輯支持，惟期刊方面卻不接受。
本刊曾以電郵查詢羅明輝高級講師、石丹理講座教授及香港大學社會工作及社會行政學系對有關事件的回應，惟於截稿前仍未有回應。
以下為本刊參考兩篇論文後所整理的內容，被指涉嫌自我抄襲且已被撤回之論文下稱A [2]，而較早刊登於RSWP之論文下稱B [3]。
-
兩篇論文之引言部分
A：True program fidelity is not easily achieved because program implementers often change or adapt the program content during actual implementation, whether intentionally or otherwise. Studies have shown that a number of preventive programs do not follow the prescribed program content entirely and adaptation is often made for specific target groups [30, 31]. One study found tension between the desire of the program implementer to adhere to the manualized plan and the desire to make adaptations in accordance with the needs of clients [32]. Although it is not an easily resolved issue, program fidelity is generally encouraged, especially when programs are designed with vigorous trial runs and repeated success rates [27, 33, 34].
B：True program fidelity is not easily achieved because program implementers often change or adapt the program content during actual implementation, whether intentionally or otherwise. Studies have shown that a number of preventive programs do not follow the prescribed program content entirely, and adaptation is made to specific target groups (Elliot & Mihalic, 2004; Nation et al., 2003). A study has found tension between the desire of the program implementer to adhere to the manualized plan and to make adaptations in accordance with the needs of clients (Wegner, Flisher, Caldwell, Vergnani, & Smith, 2008). Although it is not an easily resolved issue, program fidelity is generally encouraged, especially when programs are designed with vigorous trial runs and repeated success rates (Griffin et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2009).
-
論文內容 1：
A：Process factors are elements that are contingent to implementation quality or success and can be observed during the implementation process.
B：Process factors are those that can be observed during the implementation process and are contingent to implementation quality or success.
-
論文內容 2：
A：Some programs are even designed with their own process measurements
B：Some programs even design their own process measurements
-
兩篇論文之Discussion部分 1：（內容大致相同）
A：Despite the discrepancy in the ratings of program adherence on different units, the overall degree of adherence to the program is on the high side. This observation is generally consistent with previous findings generated from separate process evaluation studies conducted by observers [55, 56] and subjective outcome evaluations reported by the program implementers [54]. Most program content is well designed for implementation. This can be attributed to the fact that all program materials have gone through trial teaching. They have already been revised and refined according to prior teaching experience. Thus, program implementers may not have great difficulty in following the teaching plans. These findings dispute the common myth that curriculum-based positive youth development programs cannot be used easily and require major adaptations or modifications.
B：Despite the discrepancy in the rate of program adherence, the overall degree of adherence to the program units is on the high side. This observation is generally consistent with the previous findings generated from process evaluations conducted by observers (Shek et al., 2006, 2008) and subjective outcome evaluations reported by the program implementers (Shek & Sun, 2008; Shek, Sun, & Siu, 2008). Most program contents are well designed for implemen- tation. This can be attributed to the fact that all program mate- rials have gone through trial teaching. They have already been revised and refined according to prior teaching experience. Thus, program implementers did not have great difficulty in following the plans. These findings dispute the common myth that curricula-based positive youth development programs cannot be used easily and require major adaptations or modifications.
-
兩篇論文之Discussion部分 2：
A：The current study also found that program adherence and implementation process are closely associated with implementation quality and success. For positive youth programs, an interactive program delivery is the key milestone for program quality and success [57]. This explains the high correlations among these factors.
B：The current study has found that program adherence, implementation process, and implementation context are closely associated with implementation quality and success. Implementation quality and success had the highest correlation. For positive youth programs, an interactive program delivery is the key milestone for program quality and success (Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning, 2010). Thus, these factors are highly correlated with each other.
-
兩篇論文之Discussion部分 3：
A：The second implication is on a practical level. The process variables covered in the study can actually be used in other social work or health science contexts, especially in educational and developmental groups. All these measures are important for positive youth programs and should be brought to the fore in the training. Youth workers, social workers, and teachers should be aware that implementation process is critical for classroom-based psychosocial intervention programs.
B：The second implication is on a practical level. These 11 process evaluation statements can actually be used in other social work contexts, especially in educational and developmental groups. Social workers in general have to develop and implement many group work plans and psychosocial interventions.
註：
[1]明報報道：https://news.mingpao.com/pns/dailynews/web_tc/article/20180709/s00002/1531073653904
[2]被撤回之論文：https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366267/
[3]較早刊登於RSWP之論文：http://journals.sagepub.com.eproxy2.lib.hku.hk/doi/abs/10.1177/1049731511404436
