Content uploaded by Li Tang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Li Tang on Sep 14, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
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, 41national 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 SHENBLOOMBERGGETTY
How researchers in China behave has an
impact on the global scientific com-
munity. With more than fourmillion
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 dier from the top eight with the most retractions over the same period
(1978–2017). Smaller han oal number of publicaions because of collaboraions.
OUTSIZED RETRACTIONS
China has published 8% of the world’s scientific articles, but by 2017 had garnered 24% of all retractions*.
SOURCE: L. TANGWEB 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 Ofices 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/dxhj
. 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 relect the views of the funding
agencies.
Setting the agenda in research
Comment
Supplementary information | Nature | 1
©
2019
Springer
Nature
Limited.
All
rights
reserved.