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 Research programmes could be suspended or terminated, funding could be withdrawn, or awards and honours revoked.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.

No comments:

Random Posts


  • Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 355

    CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 13 October 2006 and appeared in the February issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv: grqc/0704.0525 in April 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier ar... READ MORE>>

  • Editorial Announcement: Withdrawal of Chin. Phys. Lett. 24 (2007) 1821

    CHIN.PHYS.LETT.Vol. 25, No. 8 (2008) 3094This paper was submitted on 1 February 2007 and appeared in the July issue of 2007 in Chinese Physics Letters. Later it appeared also as arXiv:grqc/ 0707.1776 in July 2007.As noted recently by the arXiv administrator, this paper plagiarized an earlier arXiv p... READ MORE>>

  • Detecting Scientific Fraud : The Chronicle Review

    Dan Greenberg Fraud, fakery, or larceny is what ordinary people would call it. But in the sciences’ refined venues the proper term is “misconduct,” and there’s a lot more of it than official figures show, according to a report in Nature (19 June), “Repairing research integrity." >>> READ MORE>>

  • Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles: THE

    Rebecca AttwoodScholars are passing off old work as new to drive up publications counts. Pressure to publish is pushing many academics to plagiarise large volumes of their own work by "dressing up" their old research to appear as if it were new, a study has found.Researchers using text-matching s... READ MORE>>

  • Publish or perish, but at what cost?

    J Clin Invest. 2008 July 1; 118(7): 2368. doi: 10.1172/JCI36371. Ushma S. Neill, Executive EditorThe academic scientific enterprise rewards those with the longest CVs and the most publications. Under pressure to generate voluminous output, scientists often fall prey to double publishing, self plagi... READ MORE>>

  • Repairing research integrity : COMMENTARY: NATURE

    A survey suggests that many research misconduct incidents in the United States go unreported to the Office of Research Integrity. Sandra L. Titus, James A. Wells and Lawrence J. Rhoades say it’s time to change that.>>> READ MORE>>

  • Scientific misconduct: Tip of the iceberg?

    Editor's Summary A survey of US researchers suggests that scientific misconduct is greatly under-reported. The Office of Research Integrity was told of only 201 instances of likely misconduct relating to work funded by the Department of Health and Human Services in three years. Yet extrapolation fr... READ MORE>>

.

.
.

Popular Posts