Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28397174›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2018

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

Qing-Jiao Liao, Yuan-Yuan Zhang, Yu-Chen Fan, Ming-Hua Zheng, Yu Bai, Guy D Eslick, Xing-Xiang He, Shi-Bing Zhang, Harry Hua-Xiang Xia, Hua He

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. What Constitutes Authorship in the Social Sciences?Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Qing-Jiao LiaoMedjaden Bioscience Limited, Room 2001-4, China Insurance Group Building, 141 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong, China.
Yuan-Yuan ZhangDepartment of Pharmacology, West China School of Preclinical and Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yu-Chen FanDepartment of Hepatology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Ming-Hua ZhengDepartment of Infection and Liver Diseases, Liver Research Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Yu BaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Guy D EslickWhiteley-Martin Research Centre, Discipline of Surgery, Sydney Medical School Nepean, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Xing-Xiang HeDepartment of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, Guangdong, China.
Shi-Bing ZhangMedjaden Bioscience Limited, Room 2001-4, China Insurance Group Building, 141 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong, China.
Harry Hua-Xiang XiaMedjaden Bioscience Limited, Room 2001-4, China Insurance Group Building, 141 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong, China. xiaharry@hotmail.com.
Hua HeMedjaden Bioscience Limited, Room 2001-4, China Insurance Group Building, 141 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong, China. selin@medjaden.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7756-1039

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AttitudeGovernment RegulationJudgmentResearch PersonnelScientific MisconductAdultAuthorshipBiomedical ResearchChinaEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleGovernmentHumansMaleMiddle AgedPlagiarismAcademic assessmentAcademic misconductInappropriate authorshipPlagiarismQuestionnaire

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.