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

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 629-645

  Liao, Qing Jiao ^a   Zhang, Yuan Yuan ^b   Fan, Yu Chen ^c   Zheng, Ming Hua ^d   Bai, Yu ^e   Eslick, Guy D ^f   He, Xing Xiang ^g   Zhang, Shi Bing ^a   Xia, Harry Hua Xiang ^a,g   He, Hua ^a  

^a Medjaden Bioscience Limited   (Hong Kong)

^b SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c SHANDONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d THE FIRST AFFILIATED HOSPITAL OF WENZHOU MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^g GUANGDONG PHARMACEUTICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ATTITUDE; CHINA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MIDDLE AGED; PERSONNEL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLISHING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; WRITING;

ADULT; ATTITUDE; AUTHORSHIP; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CHINA; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PLAGIARISM; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 85017241211     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9913-3     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
2. China Association for Science and Technology. (2015). http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2015-12/03/content_5019643.htm. Accessed March 21, 2017.
3. Chopra, V., & Eagle, K. A. (2012). Perioperative mischief: The price of academic misconduct. American Journal of Medicine, 125, 953–955.
4. Corbyn, Z. (2012). Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions. Nature, 490(7418), 21. doi:10.1038/490021a.
5. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.
6. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10, e0127556.
7. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17028–17033.
8. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395.
9. He, H., & Xia, H.-X. (2014). Science citation index papers and research performance assessment: An overview of editing companies. Medicine & Philosophy, 35(10A), 4–7.
10. Hvistendahl, M. (2013). China’s publication bazaar. Science, 342, 1035–1039.
11. Hvistendahl, M. (2015). Academic misconduct. China pursues fraudsters in science publishing. Science, 350, 1015.
12. Institute of Scientific & Technical Information of China. (2016). http://conference.istic.ac.cn/cstpcd/document/正文2016_2国际.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2017 (in Chinese).
13. Kim, J., & Park, K. (2013). Ethical modernization: Research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 355–380.
14. Lancaster, C. (2016). The acid test for biological science: STAP cells, trust, and replication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 147–167.
15. Medjaden. (2015). http://www.medjaden.com/plus/view.php?aid=934. Accessed March 21, 2017 (in Chinese).
16. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A02/s5911/moe_621/201607/t20160718_272156.html. Accessed March 21, 2017.
17. Oksvold, M. P. (2016). Incidence of data duplications in a randomly selected pool of life science publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 487–496.
18. Patnaik, P. R. (2016). Scientific misconduct in India: Causes and perpetuation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1245–1249.
19. Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 1331–1352.
20. Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2017). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 165–181.
21. Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214–221.
22. Sever, P., MacGregor, G., & Schachter, M. (2015). Commentary. Journal of Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System, 16, 701.
23. Springer. (2015). http://www.springer.com/gb/about-springer/media/statements/retraction-of-articles-from-springer-journals/735218. Accessed March 21, 2017.
24. Zhang, Y. (2010). Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature, 467, 153.