以下内容节选自某位人大毕业的博士新译者的中文译文和我们的更正。该译文是她自称修改六遍后的结果！最让人不理解的是，她自己死不认账，认为自己的译文质量没有问题，是客户和翻译公司在刁难她。客户在电话中给她指出几个问题，她拒不接受。我们翻译公司也给她去电话指出以下段落的问题，她也不接受，在电话中的态度非常蛮横，认为我们在刁难她，是因为客户扣了我们钱才想转嫁损失的！我们更正后的译文并不一定完全正确，但是有一点是肯定的，即该译者的译文是完全不合格的，该译者的英译中水平是不够的。至少该文件的翻译质量所表现出的水平是很差的。
------------------------
------------------------
译者中文译文和我们的更正（节选）：
这个框架中还包含影响系统功能的各个制度要素，这些制度要素中包括政府、非盈利性的研究实验室以及追求利润盈利性的研究实验室的行为。
在这个模型中，不同地理尺度的基于证据的科学与创新政策取决于对节点以及节点之间连接的定性的描述与定量的测量。图1展示Jaffe’s (2011 )对此框架的概念化描述。在他的论文中，Jaffe指出外溢效果与相互关联是非常重要的，但同时却也是非常的难以测量地的。
Tassey (2007) 以及 Gallaher和Petrusa (2006) 对Jaffe的科学、技术与创新（STI）技术与创新体系模型进行了改动，他们将专利性技术与一般性技术区分开来，将一般性技术视为公共物品。Tassey-Gallaher-Petrusa概念性框架的一个显著的特性是，它包含描述企业家精神、市场发展以及企业内降低风险行为的节点。在过去的十年之中，研究者再一次专注于创新投资与全要素增长率之间的关系。出于出去这个目的，他们使用了增长核算的框架（请参见Corrado，Hulten，以及 Sichel [2005]; Haskel 和 Wallis [ 2009])。同时，为了正确测量无形资产的价值，研究者与参与者都在进行改进测量方法的各项实验。
综上所述，科学、技术与创新（STI）技术与创新的评价指标的建立基于的存在大量的理论基础。然而，大家一致地认为，为了理解美国在人力资本、研究与开发以及创新各方面的能力水平以及它未来的发展趋势，也为了了解并且对比在这几项能力方面美国与其他国家的对比情况这几项能力水平与未来的发展趋势，需要对测量方法进行大体的分类。
----------------
以下是她交回初稿时，我们给她的修改意见：
审核意见：我只看了前面几页，就发现很多问题，有疏忽的地方，也有原文理解不到位的地方，也有中文语言组织不到位地方。总之，译文还显得比较粗糙，需要译者仔细逐句校对修改。如果其他人修改校对，会付出原译者数倍的时间，所付出的成本需要译者承担。所以务必请译者自己修改校对。谢谢！郭
--------------
从以上修改意见中，大家可以看出，我们的态度是非常诚恳的，但是译者置若罔闻！
---------------
对应的英文原文（节选）
Included in this framework are institutional elements that affect the functioning of the system, including activities at government, nonprofit, and for-profit research laboratories.
Evidence-based science and innovation policies at various geographic scales depend on quantitative measures and qualitative descriptions of the nodes and linkages between the nodes in this model. Figure 1 illustrates Jaffe’s (2011) conceptualization of this framework. In his paper, Jaffe points out that spillover effects and linkages are important but very difficult to measure.
Tassey (2007) and Gallaher and Petrusa (2006) have variants of the STI systems model. They distinguish proprietary technologies from generic technologies that are public goods. A distinguishing feature of the Tassey-Gallaher-Petrusa conceptual framework is that it includes nodes for entrepreneurial, market development, and risk reduction activities within companies. In the past decade, researchers have focused anew on linking investments in innovation to total factor productivity. The growth accounting framework is used for this purpose (see Corrado, Hulten, and Sichel [2005]; Haskel and Wallis [2009]). Researchers and practitioners alike are experimenting with methods accurately to measure the value of intangible assets.
Evidence-based science and innovation policies at various geographic scales depend on quantitative measures and qualitative descriptions of the nodes and linkages between the nodes in this model. Figure 1 illustrates Jaffe’s (2011) conceptualization of this framework. In his paper, Jaffe points out that spillover effects and linkages are important but very difficult to measure.
Tassey (2007) and Gallaher and Petrusa (2006) have variants of the STI systems model. They distinguish proprietary technologies from generic technologies that are public goods. A distinguishing feature of the Tassey-Gallaher-Petrusa conceptual framework is that it includes nodes for entrepreneurial, market development, and risk reduction activities within companies. In the past decade, researchers have focused anew on linking investments in innovation to total factor productivity. The growth accounting framework is used for this purpose (see Corrado, Hulten, and Sichel [2005]; Haskel and Wallis [2009]). Researchers and practitioners alike are experimenting with methods accurately to measure the value of intangible assets.
In summary, the theoretical foundations for STI indicators are myriad. Yet, there is agreement on broad categories for which measurement is needed to understand capacity and trends in human capital, R&D, and innovation in the United States, and how the United States compares to other nations in each of these areas.
