本刊春季號刊出筆者〈辨析《臺灣歷史辭典》〈南拜山〉真正應該註明的參考書目〉，辨析許雪姬所撰〈南拜山〉該詞目的參考書目，應註明陳君愷《日治時期臺灣醫生社會地位之研究》（以下簡稱「筆者專著」），而非〈南拜山翁略歷〉，始為適切，並指控其涉犯抄襲與剽竊。對此，許雪姬則於本刊夏季號，發表〈駁斥〈辨析《臺灣歷史辭典》〈南拜山〉真正應該註明的參考書目〉一文〉，提出辯解及反駁。本論文係對許雪姬所謂「駁斥」的回應。許雪姬於其論文中，自承：〈南拜山〉係由其為《灌園先生日記（三）一九三○年》所撰的註釋，改寫而成；刪去原本引用的筆者專著、僅留下〈南拜山翁略歷〉做為參考書目，並對此舉加以辯解。筆者除了反駁其說詞外，復指出：〈南拜山〉的文字敘述，既與筆者專著多所雷同；且雷同處所述事實，更完全未超出筆者專著所述事實範圍；況該詞目於南拜山來臺重要事蹟，多所缺漏，足證許雪姬並非閱讀原始文獻撰寫者，再度確認其抄襲與剽竊。

The spring edition of this journal published the author's article "Discrimination and Analysis of the Bibliography That Should Be Indicated in ‘Minami Haizan' of Dictionary of Taiwan History" with a critical analysis of Hsu Hsueh-Chi's reference list of the entry on "Minami Haizan," which actually should reference Chen Chun-Kai's A Study of Social Status of Taiwanese Doctor under Japanese Rules (hereinafter "the author's monograph") and not "The Curriculum Vitae of the Elderly Man Minami Haizan," which would be more appropriate and the article accuses her thus of plagiarism. Relating to this, Hsu Hsueh-Chi published the article "Response to the Article ‘Discrimination and Analysis of the Bibliography That Should Be Indicated in "Minami Haizan" of Dictionary of Taiwan History'" as an explanation and rebuttal. This article is a response to Hsu Hsueh-Chi's rebuttal. Hsu Hsueh-Chi states herself in her article: "Minami Haizan" is a rephrasing from her book The Diary of Lin Hsien-t'ang, Vol. 3, 1930. There, she omitted the author's monograph from which the drew upon and only left the "The Curriculum Vitae of the Elderly Man Minami Haizan" as a reference and defended her doing so. Apart from refuting her arguments, the author points out to the following: Her narrative on "Minami Haizan" is largely identical to the author's monograph and the facts related in those identical passages do in no way go beyond the facts related in the author's monograph. Furthermore, many important facts relating to Minami Haizan's coming to Taiwan are missing. This sufficiently proves that Hsu Hsueh-Chi in fact has not read the texts of the original sources, which again confirms that this is a case of plagiarism.