狗吠火車，無啥路用？—再評管理學報論文獎獲獎作品

Abstract

Ming-Cheng Kuo (2005), a renowned scholar of law and Distinguished Professor at NCCU, claimed that TSSCI journals are doubtful with respect to both academic capability and quality. Furthermore, TSSCI journals are controlling the publication opportunities open to scholars in Taiwan, thus monopolizing the academic circle. He further stressed that the TSSCI system would be detrimental to academic freedom and could jeopardize academic development. However, his argument lacked specific proof and we are witnessing the prevailing dominance of the TSSCI in the academic world. In the face of this controversy, this paper succeeded scholars' previous works by criticizing two works published in the Journal of Management and disclosed another similar work awarded by the Journal of Management as an outstanding paper. We proved that this article is full of errors with respect to basic English to Chinese tranlsation capability, academic norms, and erroneous information. In particular, there is a suspicion that the samples used were falsified. Hence, we provide further evidence that some works published in the Journal of Management contain a considerable number of errors, many of them serious. However, the authors have gained positions of power and have been awarded research funds as a result of those same error-ridden articles. If our accusation is upheld, Kuo's (2005) prediction is, accordingly, verified. In addition, we justify the legitimacy and public benefit of our action-the explicit, public, and responsible critique to academic system and academic works-from the tenets of the Constitution. This article provides a retrospective of Taiwan's academic culture and system, and proposes that the principle of placing unquestioning trust in SSCI or TSSCI should be abandoned. We advocate multiple and variant approaches for scholars to publicize their works, in particular works that criticize well-known textbooks and TSSCI papers. In these ways, teachers can better realize their moral right to publish papers. The TSSCI journals should be monitored so as to avoid being dominated by a minority of scholar-tyrants and to put an end erroneous works, as disclosed by this article, being published. The explicit, public, and comprehensive critique of an important academic journal will enhance the advancement of our society and the academic world, on which part of scholars' achievement records are based.