ArticlePDF Available

Five ways China must cultivate research integrity

Authors:

Abstract

A swift increase in scientific productivity has outstripped the country’s ability to promote rigour and curb academic misconduct; it is time to seize solutions. A swift increase in scientific productivity has outstripped the country’s ability to promote rigour and curb academic misconduct; it is time to seize solutions. A technician loads mice containers onto a rack at a Cyagen Biosciences Inc. facility in China
But China also produces a disproportionate
number of faked peer reviews and plagiarized
or fraudulent publications. Its share of retracted
papers is around three times that expected from
its scientific output (see ‘Outsized retractions’).
The past few years have witnessed high-profile
cases of faked peer reviews, image manipula-
tions and authorships for sale, some involving
prominent Chinese scientists. In May last year,
China asked two groups to foster research
integrity and manage misconduct cases: its
Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)
and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
(CASS) . In November 2018, 41national govern-
ment agencies endorsed a set of 43 penalties
for major academic misconduct. These range
from terminating grants to restricting academic
promotion and revoking business licences. This
year, the government issued a foundational
A swift increase in scientific
productivity has outstripped
the country’s ability to
promote rigour and curb
academic misconduct; it is
time to seize solutions.
Five ways China must
cultivate research integrity
Li Tang
document to promote the scientific enterprise
and foster a culture of academic integrity1.
China’s strides towards reform have been
well received domestically and abroad, but
effecting lasting change is hard2. To better
characterize the situation, my team has stud-
ied global retraction data alongside national
grants and applications that were revoked. We
also surveyed researchers online and inter-
viewed major stakeholders in China3,4. These
included experts on university ethics com-
mittees, programmes for research-integrity
training and plagiarism detection, as well
as funding-programme managers, journal
editors and academics. Here, I outline major
challenges in research integrity, and potential
strategies and solutions to buttress it.
Five strategies
Align norms. What counts as misconduct
rather than acceptable practice differs across
cultural settings and disciplines. The lack of
consensus over what misconduct means is a
thorny challenge for an emerging scientific
powerhouse. One of our interviewees noted
that senior academics even disagreed over what
constitutes an allegation.
Any discussion about misconduct and
penalties is buffeted by conflicting norms:
historical versus the present, national versus
A researcher stacks mouse containers at an animal-breeding facility near Guangzhou, China.
QILAI SHENBLOOMBERGGETTY
How researchers in China behave has an
impact on the global scientific com-
munity. With more than fourmillion
researchers, China has more science
and technology personnel than any
other nation. In 2008, it overtook the United
Kingdom in the number of articles indexed in
the Web of Science, and now ranks second in the
world. In 2018, China published 412,000 papers.
Nature | Vo  |  November  | 589
Setting the agenda in research
Comment
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.
international. For example, the reuse of text
without proper citation is, to some degree,
accepted in textbook publishing in China. Until
1999, duplicate submissions or even dual publi-
cation in Chinese and English were not consid-
ered particularly inappropriate. More than 20%
of our survey respondents felt that duplicate
submission and self-plagiarism were common
in their domain. These are deemed misconduct
in international scientific communities.
That presents Chinese scientific leaders with
a dilemma: if wrongdoing is not punished, the
scientific community could become more tol-
erant, and there might be more misconduct and
recidivism. That would waste public money,
erode trust in science and tarnish the country’s
reputation. Already, Chinese academics can
find it difficult to maintain or expand inter-
national collaborations, and universities and
funding agencies outside China have ethical
concerns about forming partnerships.
But requiring strict compliance with
international norms would target a broad
spectrum of misbehaviours that are common
practice. And high standards with unworkable
rules could legitimize non-compliance5. Either
scenario could stymie reform.
Optimize approaches. Research misbehaviour
needs to be policed. Strategies can be classed as
‘patrols’ or ‘fire alarms’6. Like other countries,
China deploys both.
On the patrol side, China National Knowl-
edge Infrastructure (CNKI), a Chinese version
of the Web of Science database, provides a pla-
giarism-checking service to Chinese journals
and universities. These have deployed CNKI
software to detect plagiarized texts, including
those saved as manipulated images. Since 2010,
grant proposals have been checked for possi-
ble plagiarism at the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC). Similarly, the
National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC)
instigates systematic clean-ups for its funded
projects, halting those that are left unfinished
after the completion deadline (typically six
years after receiving the grant). This put an
end to 302 of 5,035 grants funded from 2002
to 2005. Terminated projects increased from
60 in 2002 to 99 in 2005, but have plummeted
since checks were implemented and publicized
in 2012 (ref. 3; see ‘Checks changed behaviour’).
Patrol deters certain types of miscon-
duct, particularly before a grant or degree
is awarded or a paper accepted. But patrols
require dedicated software and infrastructure,
so are costly to enforce. Every May (just before
graduation), college students, university fac-
ulty members and support staff spend hours
checking theses for plagiarism.
Perhaps that is why a fire-alarm tactic is dom-
inant. China’s science agencies and universities
often wait to act until contacted by the media,
wronged parties or whistle-blowers, and they
focus most on cases that grab headlines. This
can be effective in the short term: in 2017, after
107 articles by Chinese authors were retracted
by the journal Tumor Biology for faked peer
reviews, investigations were completed within
4 months. More than 100 people were penalized
and some 40 NSFC grants revoked. But the fire-
alarm tactic leads to selective investigations
and uncertainty. It punishes past offences, but
does little to deter future ones.
Empower enforcement. The burden of policing
misconduct is too much for national agencies
in any country, China included. That power
is delegated to the universities and institutes
where researchers work. But these organiza-
tions, concerned about soiling reputations
and losing grant funds, are often unwilling to
investigate alleged misconduct. They tend to
respond only when whistles are blown. That
depends on whistle-blowers who shoulder
great professional and personal risk, especially
in Chinese society, which values collectivism
and interdependence over individualism and
independence. In a 2017 survey of Chinese
scholars, more than half of respondents who
observed misconduct in the past three years
said that they did nothing about it (unpublished
results; see also Supplementary Information).
Assign responsibility. Perhaps the most diffi-
cult challenge in China, as elsewhere, is whether
and to what extent to hold team members
accountable for misconduct in joint work.
Increasing specialization and globalization
has made collaborations larger and more essen-
tial. That complicates how to allocate blame as
well as credit. Should each listed author be held
accountable for the full work, or just for their
own? Should the corresponding author take
most of the responsibility for fraud and errors
others committed? Although more journals are
requiring detailed descriptions of authors’ con-
tributions, discerning who should be responsi-
ble for a collaborative piece of work is difficult.
This is particularly true when older articles are
retracted as a result of proven fraud — often,
author contributions have not been specified.
The supervisor–student relationship poses
a particular dilemma. In China, when PhD stu-
dents are found guilty of misconduct, their
supervisors are also punished. In recent scan-
dals, plagiarists were stripped of their doctoral
degrees, and their supervisors were demoted
and barred from taking on PhD candidates.
Alternatively, junior scientists might be pun-
ished, while senior ones responsible for miscon-
duct retain status and position. Some argue that
holding members of a research team account-
able by association will improve enforcement
and prevent scapegoating; others say that this
shift in responsibility is unfair and burdensome.
Cultivate integrity. China’s rapid research
development must be brought into sync with
a culture of integrity. Like other countries, it
has seen that tying publication requirements to
degree requirements, promotion or monetary
rewards can lure researchers into inappropriate
behaviour7.
Integrated tactics
What is the best way to implement these
strategies? I propose that working on several
fronts will make each easier to accomplish.
Forgive, then be tough. China’s scientific
community first needs to agree on a common
code of academic integrity that defines miscon-
duct and undesirable research practices and
sets out sanctions. China has a greater diver-
sity of funders and a more mobile scientific
workforce than ever before, so all stakehold-
ers—including researchers, managers, journal
editors and funding officers—must be in accord.
Penalties should focus on the most egre-
gious acts, which are universally recognized:
falsification, fabrication, plagiarism and fake
reviews. Researchers should be admonished
for past fraud but face harsher penalties for
incidents that occur once the code is in place.
21,859,178 publications
2,859 retractions
China
8.2%
Japan
6.8%
France
5.3%
Italy
3.7%
United States
30.7% of global publications
Germany
6.2%
United Kingdom
7.9%
Canada
4.4%
China
24.2%
Germany
6.2%
Italy
2.9%
France
2.3%
United States
28.1% of global retractions
Japan
9.5%
Canada
2.4%
United
Kingdom
5.0%
*Data for publications retrieved on 21 November 2019 and include ’article’ type only. Retractions data obtained in November 2017.
The top eight most productive nations are shown; these dier from the top eight with the most retractions over the same period
(1978–2017). Smaller han oal number of publicaions because of collaboraions.
OUTSIZED RETRACTIONS
China has published 8% of the world’s scientific articles, but by 2017 had garnered 24% of all retractions*.
SOURCE: L. TANGWEB OF SCIENCE
Comment
590 | Nature | Vo  |  November  | Corrected  November 
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.
Less serious questionable practices that were
historically accepted should be subject to a
statute of limitations.
Institutionalize. Integrity must be built
into scientific institutions, with MOST and
CASS taking the lead. CASS should set up
departments to oversee misconduct cases,
as MOST has. Both agencies should facilitate
communication between all stakeholders and
coordinate input from research societies to
formulate workable rules that are compatible
with international norms.
Transparency will help. Funding agencies
should, for example, publicize the claimed
achievements and promised research out-
puts of award recipients in prestigious talent
programmes. This accountability will deter
fraud and false advertising. China’s General
Administration of Press and Publications can
help by urging Chinese publishers and data-
base providers to take a proactive stance. For
instance, Chinese journals often simply remove
retracted articles from their collections and
the CNKI database. Instead, journals should
explicitly mark articles as retracted, as many
Western journals do
8
. They should also share
their ‘blacklists’ of authors who have repeatedly
been found guilty of duplicate submissions.
With the right support, universities and
research institutes can be best placed to initi-
ate misconduct investigations. MOST and CASS
should help them set up procedures. These
should include appointing an independent
ombudsperson to protect whistle-blowers and
those accused of misconduct, for example by
developing strategies to prevent cyberbullying
and smear campaigns. In addition, each univer-
sity should employ a professional chief integrity
officer—not a faculty ‘volunteer’—who reports
directly to a vice-president.
Incentivize. Administrative agencies must
explicitly link support for a university to
whether it vigorously investigates misconduct
allegations and promotes integrity education,
including putting dedicated professionals in
place. Agencies can also set up open, regular
communication about reform with junior and
senior researchers — for real-world input and
to allow institutions to learn from each other.
Educate. A healthy academic atmosphere
cannot be built on penalties for misbehaviour
alone. Universities could set up research-integ-
rity help desks and hotlines, making contact
information and investigation procedures
accessible. The Chinese university code of aca-
demic integrity should be linked from every
course syllabus. Teachers should have access to
plagiarism-checking software and to training so
they can understand its shortcomings.
More broadly, universities must work out
how to provide effective integrity educa-
tion. Training upstream is always better than
disciplining transgressors after the fact (see
also go.nature.com/2rpdhkv).
Many Chinese universities now require grad-
uate students to take responsible-conduct
courses. Around three-quarters of our survey
respondents said they had received training in
research ethics and integrity. Those enrolling
for a PhD at Fudan University in Shanghai, for
example, must attend mandatory ethics mod-
ules. Only those who pass the ethics quiz can
register for further coursework.
Such training needs to be universal across
Chinese institutions, and at all levels: for fac-
ulty members, technicians and non-scientific
staff. Principal investigators who coordinate
collaborations, as well as young researchers
who collect, check and validate data, must
know and accept their responsibilities4. ‘Trust
and verify’ should be bywords for all. For exam-
ple, at least two team members should collect
and code raw data and record source links
and detailed procedures. Pre-registration of
analysis plans could also prevent tampering
9
.
Study. Also needed is rigorous research on
what kind of institutional structures and pro-
grammes foster integrity, which types of train
-
ing effect the most lasting change, and how to
apply best practice. Comparative studies could
provide lessons from other countries that have
experience in combating academic misconduct
and cultivating integrity. For example, in 2014,
Denmark adopted a new code of conduct for
research integrity as a result of orchestrated
efforts by researchers, funding agencies and
other stakeholders. The Netherlands followed
suit in 2018. Indian efforts against predatory
publishing could be adapted for China, as could
the long-established US emphasis on quality
rather than quantity in research evaluation.
To gather this knowledge, oversight agencies
should have an open-door policy for stakehold-
ers to express constructive and diverse opin-
ions. Proceedings of misconduct investigations
should be made public, not be shrouded in
secrecy
10
. Funding agencies need to earmark
money for research-integrity studies to attract
bright minds to the field. This year, the NSFC
issued an open call for proposals on research
integrity and ethics; it is unclear whether such
funds will be available in future.
China must curb misconduct and foster
integrity if it is to realize the central govern-
ment’s ambition of “world-class universities,
world-class disciplines”. It is still too early to
anticipate all the changes reforms will bring,
but the government has signalled its determi-
nation to act. We might see more investigations
of misconduct because of closer scrutiny in the
next couple of years. Improving the research
practices of Chinese scholars will boost
innovation and development everywhere.
The author
Li Tang is a professor of public policy at the
School of International Relations and Public
Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai, China;
and a member of the board of directors of the
Chinese Association for Science of Science
and S&T Policy (CASSSP).
e-mail: litang@fudan.edu.cn
. General Ofices of the Communist Party of China Central
Committee and the State Council. [in Chinese] ‘Opinions
on Further Promoting the Spirit of Scientists and
Strengthening the Style of Work and Study Style’ (CPC
Central Committee & State Council, ); available at
https://go.nature.com/dxhj
. Lei, R., Zhai, X., Zhu, W. & Qiu, R. Nature 569, – ().
. Tang, L. & Wang, L. [in Chinese] Sci. Sci. Manag. S&T 40,
– ().
. Walsh, J. P., Lee, Y.-N. & Tang, L. Res. Pol. 48, – ().
. Pedro, A. C. Rational. Soc. 30, – ().
. McCubbins, M. D. & Schwartz, T. Am. J. Polit. Sci.28,
– ().
. Fanelli, D., Costas, R. & Larivière, V. PLoS ONE 10,
e ().
. Harrison, W. et al. Acta Cryst. E66, e–e ().
. Nosek, B, A., Ebersole, C. A., DeHaven, A. C. & Mellor, D. T.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, – ().
. Gunsalus, C. Nature 570,  ().
Supplementary Information accompanies this article:
see go.nature.com/qahhbu
Revoked funded grants
0
20
40
60
80
100
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2 007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year funded
Proportion of terminated
projects fell from 6.6%
(for 2005 grants) to 0.5%
(for 2006 grants).
CHECKS CHANGED BEHAVIOUR
After the National Social Science Fund of China began terminating grants for incomplete overdue projects
in 2012, researchers quickly complied with the funding agency’s deadlines for finishing work (typically six years).
SOURCE: NSSFC
Nature | Vo  |  November  | 591
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.
Supplementary information to:
Five ways China must cultivate research integrity
A Comment published in Nature 575, 589–591 (2019)
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03613-1
Li Tang
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China
(#71843009) and the Ministry of Education
(#WKH3056005). The opinions expressed in
this publication are those of the author and do
not necessarily relect the views of the funding
agencies.
Setting the agenda in research
Comment
Supplementary information | Nature | 1
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.
... Another challenge is academic misconduct. China has experienced fast retraction in recent years (Tang 2019;Ana et al. 2013). When a certain number of papers are required for promotion for clinicians in hospitals, engineers, and even for those whose primary work task is not scientific research, a few people engage in academic misconduct (Qiu 2010;Wang and Liu 2019). ...
... However, there are many barriers to fighting academic misconduct. For example, a few universities are worried about damage to their reputations or loss of academic resources, so they stand by the researchers and even help cover up the misconduct (Tang 2019). In 2009, the Ministry of Education issued a notice requiring serious punishment for academic misconduct prompting a surge in research related to academic misconduct. ...
Article
Full-text available
This academic paper critically examines the incentive measures established by China to foster scientific innovation. The study explores China’s five key incentive measures, namely the pilot tenure-track system, monetary rewards for scientific publications, research awards for scientific achievements, "hat-talent" selection, and research funding system. The analysis also addresses the challenges associated with these measures, such as heightened work stress due to intense competition and occurrences of academic misconduct. In conclusion, two recommendations are proposed to enhance China’s incentive system: the establishment of a responsible peer review system and the reduction of administrative power’s influence on scientists’ career trajectories.
... 12 Thus, the Chinese government has paid great attention and introduced a series of regulations to address this issue. 13 For instance, the General Office of the State Council in China issued "Several Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction of Scientific Integrity (2018)" to improve the management and accountability mechanism of scientific integrity. 14 In addition, China has upgraded its scientific integrity management model with the unremitting efforts of the government and institutions. ...
... The findings reflect that there is still a partial lack of awareness among medical staff about scientific misconduct, and China still needs to strengthen education on scientific integrity among researchers. 12,13 Finally, the multiple regression analysis showed that women, the medical technology sector, higher educational levels, and higher titles were significantly associated with higher perceptions of scientific integrity. Specifically, female participants had a higher understanding of scientific integrity than males. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objective Cases of scientific misconduct have occurred frequently, especially in the field of medical research. We collected electronic questionnaires from 1257 medical staff in 43 cities and obtained a cross-sectional data set of their understanding of scientific integrity in research. This study aims to propose recommendations for establishing a mature oversight system for research integrity. Methods The study employed multiple regression analysis to explore the effect of different factors on the perception of four types of research integrity. Results Female participants had a higher understanding of project application integrity than men (P < 0.001). Participants in clinical departments had a lower understanding of project application integrity than those in nursing departments (clinical vs. nursing, P = 0.046). Participants with a junior college degree or below had a lower understanding than those who had a postgraduate degree and doctoral degree (junior college or below vs. postgraduate degree, P < 0.001; junior college or below vs. doctoral degree, P < 0.001). Conclusions We found that female, medical technology department, advanced education background, and advanced professional titles were significantly associated with a higher understanding of scientific integrity in research in China.
... As the largest global contributor of basic science research, the country with the most populous science and technology workforce, and the second-largest research and development player, China's research quality and academic integrity have tremendous consequences for the global scientific community (NSB, 2020;Tang, 2019). Given the roles and responsibilities funding agencies have toward society generally and the scientific community specifically, it is time to examine how science grant agencies curb scientific misconduct and cultivate research integrity. ...
... As illustrated in Fig. 5, the top reason for incurring punitive action on both nonfunded grant proposals and funded grants is funded fraudulent paper (41% for nonfunded proposals and 71% for funded grants). This is different from the National Social Science Fund of China, for which delays of project completion and the incapability of delivering research (Tang, 2019). Some offenders were identified in more than one grant application or award and for multiple counts of misconduct, such as plagiarizing others' proposals, duplicate proposal submissions, and producing sham research with government money. ...
Article
Full-text available
As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China’s largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the “police patrol” and “fire alarm” approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.
... "A cikk szinte kizárólag a negatív aspektusokra összpontosít, ami potenciálisan félrevezeti az olvasókat, hogy azt higgyék, a kínai felsőoktatási reformok súlyosan hibásak és felgyorsítják a kutatási csalásokat." Tang Li, [5] a sanghaji Fudan Egyetem tudomány-és innovációs politikai kutatója egyetért. Az első kézből származó beszámolók értékesek, de a megállapítások elfogultak lehetnek, mert azok, akik elfogadták az interjút, erős érzelmekkel rendelkezhetnek, és nem biztos, hogy reprezentálják azok véleményét, akik visszautasították az interjút. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Névtelen interjúalanyok szerint etikátlan viselkedést folytattak, hogy megvédjék állásaikat — bár mások szerint a tanulmány túlzottan negatív képet fest. „Nem volt más választásom, mint [kutatási] csalást elkövetni” — vallja be egy kutató egy elit kínai egyetemen. A megdöbbentő kijelentés egy több tucat névtelen, mélyinterjúból álló gyűjteményben található, amely ritka, első kézből származó beszámolókat nyújt olyan kutatókról, akik etikátlan viselkedést folytattak — és leírja, mi vitte őket erre a szintre. Egy, az interjúkon alapuló cikk 2024. áprilisban jelent meg a Research Ethics című folyóiratban.
... The authors pinpoint how ethics committees operate in historical and cultural contexts and call for timely reflections on the influences of history, social context, and the structure of the respective countries' ethical review processes in collaborative, international research. Researchers globally call for transparent discussions in research networks concerning codes of conduct supportive of international research collaboration (Schroeder et al., 2019;Tang, 2019). As argued by Guillemin and Gillam (2004), researcher ethics encompass both 'procedural ethics', e.g., ethics applications and review processes, and 'ethics in practice', i.e., ethical issues encountered in the day-to-day research processes. ...
Article
Full-text available
International research collaborations engage multiple countries, researchers, and universities. This enhances the magnitude of contextual challenges, including legal and ethical dimensions across various jurisdictions, that must be bridged in qualitative research regardless of discipline, also in the construction of informed consents. From a Scandinavian perspective, this discussion paper explores challenges pertaining to the construction of informed consents related to EU data protection legislation, to which research institutions are subject when processing data related to EU residents. Next, it discusses challenges related to different traditions in terms of handling informed consent and research participants’ integrity, including the possibilities to waive anonymity in research. In international, multidisciplinary studies where researchers also operate in relatively ‘unknown territory’, it is especially important to be aware of and reflect on (inter)national possibilities and limitations related to laws, ethics, and culture/traditions in societies and within the academic fields. The variations in laws, ethical guidelines, and traditions in different countries demand that researchers are up to date with laws and ethical guidelines in the studied countries. Their practical implementation in the countries at stake in international, collaborative research endeavours are important, especially since such regulations and guidelines are far from static and change over time. The implementation of good ethical research practice requires democratic, reflexive, and responsive processes in all phases of research. Especially the preparation phase functions as a period to increase and ensure the knowledge and legal/ethical competences of the entire research team to meet the demands in the countries at stake.
Article
The emergence of China as a global leader in scientific output is being overshadowed by a growing crisis of confidence in its research integrity. In addition to existing efforts, we propose five actionable initiatives to bolster the fight against China’s retraction crisis.
Article
According to Scopus, China is the nation that produces the highest volume of scientific research but is also the nation with the highest number of retractions, suggesting there are issues connected to research and publishing ethics within the Chinese publishing infrastructure. One source of negative reputation may be the selection of journals with questionable reputation, including “predatory” journals. In 2020, the Center of Scientometrics (CoS) in China established a list of “problematic” journals, called the Chinese Early Warning Journal List (EWJL), the only national watchlist in China, to support Chinese academics and the Ministry of Science and Technology of China. EWJL ranks journals as either low, medium or high risk. There are benefits if EWJL is accurate, valid and complete. However, close examination of the CoS website and EWJL functionality revealed several deficiencies. This paper debates those weaknesses within the wider context of publication in low-quality journals, offering suggestions for improvement that would be necessary for EWJL to become more trustworthy, and to better enable the continual reform of Chinese publishing culture. This issue is important to academic librarians because they can use EWJL in the process of collecting library funds and providing library information, and advice, to researchers.
Article
Full-text available
The honesty and integrity of scientists is widely believed to be threatened by pressures to publish, unsupportive research environments, and other structural, sociological and psychological factors. Belief in the importance of these factors has inspired major policy initiatives, but evidence to support them is either non-existent or derived from self-reports and other sources that have known limitations. We used a retrospective study design to verify whether risk factors for scientific misconduct could predict the occurrence of retractions, which are usually the consequence of research misconduct, or corrections, which are honest rectifications of minor mistakes. Bibliographic and personal information were collected on all co-authors of papers that have been retracted or corrected in 2010-2011 (N=611 and N=2226 papers, respectively) and authors of control papers matched by journal and issue (N=1181 and N=4285 papers, respectively), and were analysed with conditional logistic regression. Results, which avoided several limitations of past studies and are robust to different sampling strategies, support the notion that scientific misconduct is more likely in countries that lack research integrity policies, in countries where individual publication performance is rewarded with cash, in cultures and situations were mutual criticism is hampered, and in the earliest phases of a researcher's career. The hypothesis that males might be prone to scientific misconduct was not supported, and the widespread belief that pressures to publish are a major driver of misconduct was largely contradicted: high-impact and productive researchers, and those working in countries in which pressures to publish are believed to be higher, are less-likely to produce retracted papers, and more likely to correct them. Efforts to reduce and prevent misconduct, therefore, might be most effective if focused on promoting research integrity policies, improving mentoring and training, and encouraging transparent communication amongst researchers.
Article
Confronted with bad behaviour, institutions will keep asking the wrong questions until they have to show their working, says C. K. Gunsalus. Confronted with bad behaviour, institutions will keep asking the wrong questions until they have to show their working, says C. K. Gunsalus. “Secrecy perpetuates misbehaviour and breeds mistrust.”
Article
The shocking announcement of genetically modified babies creates an opportunity to overhaul the nation’s science, argue Ruipeng Lei and colleagues. The shocking announcement of genetically modified babies creates an opportunity to overhaul the nation’s science, argue Ruipeng Lei and colleagues. Clinicians work at a hospital in Beijing to give a patient in vitro fertilisation treatment
Article
Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes-a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.
Article
How are rules enforced in the absence of an organization with coercive powers? I examine the role of informal institutions in supporting self-enforcement of rules through ethnographic research on a popular form of community-based gambling in the Philippines. In ending, a reputation-based mechanism shapes exchange relations between bettors and bet-takers, and among members of a local community. Social norms about sharing one’s winnings (balato) provide community members with an interest in the outcome of these exchange relations, thereby strengthening the ability of bettors to acquire information about the reputation of various bet-takers. In consequence, bet-takers exert efforts to safeguard their reputation, and comply with informal rules about the immediate and complete delivery of winnings. The findings suggest that when communities are small enough so that members are able to observe each other, but not too small so that no individual possesses all the relevant information, then social norms that generate effective transmission of reputational information provide sufficient institutional support for self-governance.
Article
Scholars have often remarked that Congress neglects its oversight responsibility. We argue that Congress does no such thing: what appears to be a neglect of oversight really is the rational preference for one form of oversight--which we call fire-alarm oversight--over another form--police-patrol oversight. Our analysis supports a somewhat neglected way of looking at the strategies by which legislators seek to achieve their goals.
  • L Tang
  • L Wang
Tang, L. & Wang, L. [in Chinese] Sci. Sci. Manag. S&T 40, 15-30 (2019).
  • J P Walsh
  • Y.-N Lee
  • L Tang
Walsh, J. P., Lee, Y.-N. & Tang, L. Res. Pol. 48, 444-461 (2019).