Literature DB >> 28397174

Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010.

Qing-Jiao Liao1, Yuan-Yuan Zhang2, Yu-Chen Fan3, Ming-Hua Zheng4, Yu Bai5, Guy D Eslick6, Xing-Xiang He7, Shi-Bing Zhang1, Harry Hua-Xiang Xia8,9, Hua He10.   

Abstract

Publications by Chinese researchers in scientific journals have dramatically increased over the past decade; however, academic misconduct also becomes more prevalent in the country. The aim of this prospective study was to understand the perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct and the trend from 2010 to 2015. A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was designed and then validated by ten biomedical researchers in China. In the years 2010 and 2015, respectively, the questionnaire was sent as a survey to biomedical researchers at teaching hospitals, universities, and medical institutes in mainland China. Data were analyzed by the Chi squared test, one-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test, or Spearman's rank correlation method, where appropriate. The overall response rates in 2010 and 2015 were 4.5% (446/9986) and 5.5% (832/15,127), respectively. Data from 15 participants in 2010 were invalid, and analysis was thus performed for 1263 participants. Among the participants, 54.7% thought that academic misconduct was serious-to-extremely serious, and 71.2% believed that the Chinese authorities paid no or little attention to the academic misconduct. Moreover, 70.2 and 65.2% of participants considered that the punishment for academic misconduct at the authority and institution levels, respectively, was not appropriate or severe enough. Inappropriate authorship and plagiarism were the most common forms of academic misconduct. The most important factor underlying academic misconduct was the academic assessment system, as judged by 50.7% of the participants. Participants estimated that 40.1% (39.8 ± 23.5% in 2010; 40.2 ± 24.5% in 2015) of published scientific articles were associated with some form of academic misconduct. Their perceptions towards academic misconduct had not significantly changed over the 5 years. Reform of the academic assessment system should be the fundamental approach to tackling this problem in China.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Academic assessment; Academic misconduct; Inappropriate authorship; Plagiarism; Questionnaire

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28397174     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  17 in total

1.  Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized.

Authors:  Yuehong Zhang
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Commentary.

Authors:  Peter Sever; Graham MacGregor; Michael Schachter
Journal:  J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.636

3.  ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT. China pursues fraudsters in science publishing.

Authors:  Mara Hvistendahl
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: what can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?

Authors:  R Saunders; J Savulescu
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Incidence of Data Duplications in a Randomly Selected Pool of Life Science Publications.

Authors:  Morten P Oksvold
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  The Acid Test for Biological Science: STAP Cells, Trust, and Replication.

Authors:  Cheryl Lancaster
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.525

7.  Scientific Misconduct in India: Causes and Perpetuation.

Authors:  Pratap R Patnaik
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 3.525

8.  Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.

Authors:  Zoë Corbyn
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 9.  Perioperative mischief: the price of academic misconduct.

Authors:  Vineet Chopra; Kim A Eagle
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 4.965

10.  Research Misconduct in the Croatian Scientific Community: A Survey Assessing the Forms and Characteristics of Research Misconduct.

Authors:  Vanja Pupovac; Snježana Prijić-Samaržija; Mladen Petrovečki
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.525

View more
  14 in total

1.  Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools a Versatile Exercise for Introducing Students to Negotiated Consensus.

Authors:  Brian P Coppola; India C Plough; Huai Sun
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 3.525

2.  Science as a Matter of Honour: How Accused Scientists Deal with Scientific Fraud in Japan.

Authors:  Pablo A Pellegrini
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-06-26       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  A Primer on Plagiarism: Resources for Educators in China.

Authors:  Gregory C Gray; Laura K Borkenhagen; Nancy S Sung; Shenglan Tang
Journal:  Change       Date:  2019-03-26

4.  Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.

Authors:  Tao Wang; Qin-Rui Xing; Hui Wang; Wei Chen
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China.

Authors:  Nannan Yi; Benoit Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.525

6.  Ethical Perspectives of Chinese and United States Physicians at Initiation of a Research Collaborative.

Authors:  Christopher Grondin; Yali Cong; Nahid Keshavarzi; Michael E Geisser; Joseph C Kolars; Raymond J Hutchinson
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 3.057

Review 7.  Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement.

Authors:  Durga Prasanna Misra; Vinod Ravindran; Vikas Agarwal
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 2.153

8.  Factors associated with scientific misconduct and questionable research practices in health professions education.

Authors:  Lauren Maggio; Ting Dong; Erik Driessen; Anthony Artino
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2019-04

9.  What Constitutes Authorship in the Social Sciences?

Authors:  Gernot Pruschak
Journal:  Front Res Metr Anal       Date:  2021-03-23

10.  Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.

Authors:  Nannan Yi; Benoit Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.