最好把两篇文章贴上来比较

严格来讲肯定算抄袭，但是不严重

在中国这种现象真的是司空见惯了。喜欢用国外的东西做中国的故事，可是最后做出来有几个人跟国外的东西不同呢？楼主淡定。

我在这里粘一段好了：


再看看RW的文章：
Most nonlinear price schedules take the form of multi-part tariffs. Since Gabor (1955),
economists have realized that multi-part tariffs imply that the consumer faces a nonlinear (i.e. a
kinked) budget constraint. The demand behaviour of a utility-maximizing consumer thus depends
not on the average price, nor any single marginal price, but on the entire price schedule. The
standard econometric approach to demand analysis in this setting, which traces to Hall (1973), is
to “linearize” the budget constraint. This amounts to using the plane tangent to the consumer’s
nonlinear budget constraint at the optimal consumption bundle as its linear approximation. By
doing so, one can express demand under nonlinear pricing in terms of the ordinary demand
function of classical consumer theory, which assumes a linear budget constraint.
To be specific, let x(p, y) be the ordinary demand function that indicates the consumer’s
desired quantity facing a constant (marginal and average) price p and income y. Suppose, however, that the consumer faces an increasing price schedule s(p) of the form depicted in Figure 1.
Here the consumer pays a low price p1 for each unit up to the quantity xˉ, and a higher price p2
thereafter. Then the optimal consumption level x∗ satisfies


From an econometric perspective, equation (3) is a nonlinear censored regression model in
which the censoring occurs in the interior of the distribution of outcomes rather than the
tails. Such models are generally estimated by maximum likelihood methods, using the discrete
structure in (3) to derive the change-of-variables from an (assumed) marginal distribution of
ε to the distribution of x∗. Burtless and Hausman (1978), with later extensions by Hausman
(1985), Moffitt (1986), and others, develop likelihood functions for models with this structure.
Unfortunately, maximum likelihood estimation quickly becomes computationally intractable
when the consumption outcomes from a mixed discrete/continuous model are aggregated over
time. This problem renders likelihood methods infeasible for our application.9 Consequently, we
pursue a moment-based approach to estimation.


这样的段落由很多，几乎就是原文翻译，就算借鉴模型也不至于全文翻译吧。。。

我回复了一些段落，您可以看看，文风极其相似，几乎就是原文翻译。
相似的这些段落我估计能够占到文章的50%以上。

刚刚百度了一下，世界经济是中国社会科学院做的，这篇文章一作也是中国社科院的

刚刚百度了一下，世界经济是中国社会科学院做的，这篇文章一作也是中国社科院的

肯定属于抄袭啊。。。建议举报这种学术不端的行为。。学术圈中的渣滓

世界经济 是社科院很重要的期刊 这样做还是很严重的

作者有注明出处吗？有注明参考文献吗？

应该是抄袭啊，不抄不会整段整段一样啊

作者在最开始的地方说参照RW方法，但是不会整段啊

不管注明与否，这样整段整段地翻译终究不妥，当然，连出处都不注明的更情节严重一些

注明出处，写了参考文献，可以这样吗

按照国外的要求，这属于严重的学术不端。这是学术委员会教授给我们上课的时候讲的。首先，整段翻译的话，必须打双引号；其次，如果文章大部分都是翻译的，绝对不会允许发表。此外，私以为这社科院的教授肯定没有读过这些引用的论文，而且对研究的问题肯定也不是非常了解，不然的话，绝不可能出现整段照抄的情况。

更好的处理方法是对上述英文语句再做一次归纳总结，以显示与原文不同，而像这样直突突的翻译确实容易引起质疑。其实国内好一些的期刊对参考文献的梳理颇为讲究，多数文章的文献综述其实就是相互抄搬，美其名曰借鉴。换一句话讲，很多发表的文章作者自己都觉得没有必要，但是由于这样那样的原因，还得写，还得发，还得创新，而真正的创新能有多少呢？我觉得有位大家说得好，创新其实是少数人的事。因此，我的观点是，对于此篇的文献梳理，不妨当成拿来主义吧，鲁迅更看重的是，这些拿来的东西对中国而言究竟有没有价值。

问题是不止出现在文献梳理部分，基本上超过一半都是直接翻译。
我现在又仔细读了一遍，我认为，这篇文章的结论是有问题的，模型与结果不一致。

举报他，此风不可长~~~~

不敢苟同啊~
仔细看一下楼主贴的这两段，其实后面的内容也是不一样的。
前面那段，英文那个论文是两级阶梯，中文那个是三阶，你接着把后面的公式贴上来就不一样了。
后面那段，英文那个论文直接就是模型了，中文那个是单月，实际数据是双月，还要再加总~

您可以再接下来读一下文章其余部分，我再贴一段，如果要用别人的模型或者拓展，我认为应该是自己理解后，结合自己的文章重新搭建吧？
这样的原文翻译不合适吧
An important aspect of this model is that the household-level demand error,
ε, is heteroscedastic. This occurs because the stochastic term in the household-level demand
specification is the sum of the stochastic terms associated with the K appliance utilization
equations (8). Specifically, from equations (8) to (10), the variance of the household-level
stochastic term is a function of the appliances owned:
var(ε) = XK j=1 Xk K=1 d jdk cov(ε j,εk) (11)
≡ σ(d1, d2,..., dK)2.
We think of the appliance-level stochastic terms as reflecting households’ idiosyncratic tastes
for utilizing appliances. A variety of behavioural considerations then suggest that the covariance
terms entering (11) will tend to be positive, so that the variance of the household-level stochastic
term will increase with the number of appliances owned.
From an econometric perspective, equation (11) is a simple model of group-wise
heteroscedasticity in which the “group” is a specific portfolio of household appliances. Normally,
this would not be a major concern for estimating the parameters of a linear demand specification
such as (10). When consumers face nonlinear prices, however, the variance of the household-level
stochastic term affects the likelihood that a consumer will fall on one tariff segment or another.
This can be seen immediately from equation (6), where (the root of) the variance term, σ , enters
the conditional expectation function and the tariff segment probabilities. The heteroscedastic
variance of unobserved tastes thus affects expected consumption calculations and estimation of
all the demand parameters

R&W的论文绝对是经典。看到了楼主的帖子，就顺便回复下了。
本人完全不敢苟同楼主的观点。模型设定相同甚至符号相同在英文论文里也属于是极为普遍的合理现象。一篇经典论文出现之后，后续的论文，尤其是实证论文，都会沿用经典论文的模型设定。换句话说，后续跟进的论文的模型设定甚至符号都会和经典论文相同。这些后续英文论文不也照样再国外公开发表？！难道后续得论文都全是抄袭了！
实证论文得核心在于用到更新或者更全面的数据。现在的论文，做理论和方法创新是极难的，因此，绝大多数论文是实证论文。同理，绝大多数的实证论文是不可能有理论和方法创新的。换句话说，绝大多数论文的模型设定都和以前的论文一致，能说这些论文都是抄袭吗？
至于作者分电器回归的问题。建议作者仔细看看R&W的论文吧。
楼主从慎重的角度质疑的精神值得敬佩，但仅凭模型设定认定抄袭，是不严谨的。
至于楼主贴出来的文献综述的那两段，好像两句话比较像，但离“大段的翻译”还是有极大的差距的。

刚才又仔细看了下R&W的文章，和作者提到的文章。我想说的是，两篇文章的模型其实是不一样的！楼主还是应该多读些论文。
至于文献综述的那两句话，呵呵，最多是个不严谨。
楼主去energy economics喝energy policy里面看看，找些作者是中国人的论文，看看这些中国人发表的英文论文的模型设定和文献综述吧！如果按照楼主的逻辑，这两个杂志里面的大多数论文的“模型设定”喝“文献综述”问题，都比你说的这篇文章严重。。。。。。