January 13, 2010

Publish or perish in China

The latest in a string of high-profile academic fraud cases in China underscores the problems of an academic-evaluation system that places disproportionate emphasis on publications, critics say. Editors at the UK-based journal Acta Crystallographica Section E last month retracted 70 published crystal structures that they allege are fabrications by researchers at Jinggangshan University in Jiangxi province. Further retractions, the editors say, are likely.>>>

January 9, 2010

Scientific fraud: action needed in China - THE LANCET

THE LANCET, Volume 375, Issue 9709, Page 94, 9 January 2010

Editorial
On Dec 19, 2009, editors at Acta Crystallographica Section Ealerted the scientific community to a disgraceful pattern of fraud involving papers they had published in 2007. At least 70 false crystal structures were reported—mainly from two groups led by Hua Zhong and Tao Liu, both at Jinggangshan University, Jian, China. All authors have now agreed to retraction of 41 papers published by Zhong and 29 by Liu. It is rather surprising that wrongdoing on such a scale evaded detection during peer review and, considering that crystal structures are deposited in public databases upon publication, that the truth has been uncovered so slowly.
In China, the government controls almost all funding for research. As in other countries, to gain funding researchers need to publish as many papers in high impact journals as possible. According to Science Citation Index and other resources, Chinese authors published 271 000 papers in 2008, roughly 11·5% of the world's total. This incident is not the first time that scientific fraud has occurred in China. Regulations to monitor state-funded research projects were announced in 2006 by the Ministry of Science and Technology in response to six high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. A new circular was issued on March 19, 2009, aimed at preventing misconduct in higher education institutions—punishment for breaching the new rules could involve warnings, dismissal, or legal action. Research programmes could be suspended or terminated, funding could be withdrawn, or awards and honours revoked.
Such extensive fraud is disappointing—not only does it indicate a substantial waste of research time and money, but it is likely that, whatever punishments do result, damage to the reputations of the researchers, institutions, and journal concerned is likely to be disproportionately great. Clearly, China's Government needs to take this episode as a cue to reinvigorate standards for teaching research ethics and for the conduct of research itself, as well as establishing robust and transparent procedures for handling allegations of scientific misconduct to prevent further instances of fraud.
For Hu Jintao's goal of China becoming a research superpower by 2020 to be credible, China must assume stronger leadership in scientific integrity.

Random Posts


  • Scientific fraud: action needed in China - THE LANCET

    THE LANCET, Volume 375, Issue 9709, Page 94, 9 January 2010 EditorialOn Dec 19, 2009, editors at Acta Crystallographica Section Ealerted the scientific community to a disgraceful pattern of fraud involving papers they had published in 2007. At least 70 false crystal structures were reported—mainly... READ MORE>>

  • Plagiarism scandal grows in Iran

    Nature 462, 704-705 (2009) | doi:10.1038/462704a Investigation finds more cases of duplication in publications co-authored by ministers and senior officials.Declan ButlerEXCLUSIVE Nature has uncovered further instances of apparent plagiarism in papers co-authored by governmen... READ MORE>>

  • Analysis of retractions puts spotlight on academia

    Nicola Jones Nature Medicine 15, 1101 (2009) doi:10.1038/nm1009-1101 About half of the medical papers retracted over the past few decades were pulled because of misconduct rather than an innocent mistake, according to two new studies. And that fraction is on the increase. Yet although drug compa... READ MORE>>

  • Peer reviewers satisfied with system : TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION

    David Schley But Sense About Science survey finds that two thirds of those polled think it is failing to detect plagiarism.With the number of learned papers published each year rising to 1.3 million, the peer- review system might be expected to be fraying at the seams. But an international survey ... READ MORE>>

  • Self-plagiarism: unintentional, harmless, or fraud?

    THE LANCETVolume 374, Issue 9691, 29 August 2009-4 September 2009, Page 664 Editorialhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736%2809%2961536-1 The intense pressure to publish to advance careers and attract grant money, together with decreasing time available for busy researchers and clinicians, can creat... READ MORE>>

  • Retractions up tenfold - TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION

    20 August 2009By Zoë Corbyn 'Publish or perish' factor in withdrawal of science papers. Zoe Corbyn reports var pgtitle = "Retractions up tenfold"; var byline = "Zoë Corbyn"; The rate at which scientific journal articles are being retracted has increased roughly tenfold over the past tw... READ MORE>>

  • Perishing Without Publishing - INSIDE HIGHER ED

    Rob Weir Welcome to the 21st century. Journals and publishing houses are folding faster than a roomful of origami artists, while new online journals are appearing all the time. Nietzsche once proclaimed the demise of God, but the new mantra is “Print is dead!” Maybe, maybe not; but however these ... READ MORE>>

.

.
.

Popular Posts