ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018
Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Integrity in Biomedical Research: A Systematic Review of Studies in China.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Pooled it
- The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Ethical Perspectives of Chinese and United States Physicians at Initiation of a Research Collaborative.Accountability in research · 2022Article
- Characteristics of global retractions of schizophrenia-related publications: A bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Article
- Writing for "International Orthopaedics": authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Research Misconduct in the Fields of Ethics and Philosophy: Researchers' Perceptions in Spain.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- What Constitutes Authorship in the Social Sciences?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Purple Dragons and Yellow Toadstools a Versatile Exercise for Introducing Students to Negotiated Consensus.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Retracted Publications in the Biomedical Literature from Open Access Journals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- A comprehensive review of Hep-2 cell line in translational research for laryngeal cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2019Review
- Article
- Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Review
- Science as a Matter of Honour: How Accused Scientists Deal with Scientific Fraud in Japan.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28397174What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.