Progress and challenges of research integrity in China

Abstract

Research integrity has been a focal topic in the global scientific community. Some countries face challenges inherent in the discovery of research misconduct. In recent years, paper mills (Mallapaty, 2020), faked peer reviews (Cyranoski, 2017) and retracted papers (Stigbrand, 2017) in China have attracted extensive attention. This has overshadowed China's progress in research integrity made by the government and the scientific community. Therefore, the objective demonstration of China's progress in research integrity is necessary to help the Chinese and global scientific communities better understand China's achievements in this endeavour.

1. Progress in research integrity in China

1.1 An institutional framework for research integrity has been formed

China has established an institutional framework for research integrity that covers various levels, from central and local governments to universities and research institutions (RIs). In 2018 and 2019, the Chinese government issued two special documents on strengthening research integrity: Opinions on further strengthening research integrity and Opinions on further promoting the spirit of scientists and strengthening the style of work and study (CPCCC and State Council, 2018, 2019). The two opinions are the highest level policies regarding research integrity in China and provide an overarching architecture for governing and promoting research integrity in China in the future. The opinions clarified the responsibilities of the government, funding agencies, RIs, researchers and other related entities, defined types of research misconduct and stipulated the procedures for investigating and remedying misconduct. The newly revised Law of the People's Republic of China on the Progress of Science and Technology (NPC, 2021), which came into force on 1 January 2022, also strengthened the importance of establishing and improving the research integrity system in China.

Since May 2018, nearly 30 policies on or including research integrity have been issued based on the two opinions at the ministerial level, and more than 50 policies have been issued at the provincial level. Important documents include the Rules for investigating and handling research misconduct issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and the Memorandum on joint punishment for research misconduct issued by MOST, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) and other ministries and agencies. Most universities and RIs have also released their research integrity rules. Regulations on research integrity based on specified research contexts and characteristics in some fields (such as health, publishing and agriculture) have also been issued to foster good research behaviour.

1.2 A research integrity management system has been established and is playing an increasingly important role

In 2007, MOST and five other ministries and institutions set up the Joint Working Mechanism on Research Integrity (JWMRI). Its membership has since increased to 21 (including major ministries and institutions related to research funding and management), marking the establishment of a coordination and management mechanism at the national level. Under the JWMRI, ministries, funding agencies, local governments, universities and RIs perform their respective duties concerning the management of research integrity. At the national level, MOST is responsible for the management of research integrity in the fields of natural science and technology, and the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences is responsible for the management of research integrity in the fields of philosophy and social sciences. Other line ministries and offices are responsible for the management of research integrity in the fields of their mandates, such as public health, agriculture and environment. Provincial departments of science and technology (DOSTs) take on the duty of research integrity management in their own provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities. Most colleges, universities and RIs have established mechanisms in which the president or vice president is responsible for the management of research integrity. In August 2019, the National Information System of Research Integrity was established, based on which ministries and provincial DOSTs can collect, submit and access information concerning misconduct. Fifteen provinces have established their own information systems.

1.3 The investigation and treatment of misconduct have been strengthened

MOST, NSFC and the National Health Commission of China have established a mechanism to disclose cases of research misconduct. A survey of 370 institutions, including universities, RIs and hospitals, concerning research activities in China shows that all allegations were handled in a timely manner, and 48.3% of the allegations came from government notifications (Compile Group, 2022). In China, new media such as WeChat, Weibo and short videos are also effective ways to show examples of misconduct. Thanks to the supervision of the media and the public, the agencies or institutions involved can act quickly once an allegation is made, thus improving the transparency of investigations. In 2021, a survey of 14,046 science and technology professionals in China conducted by a team from the China Association for Science and Technology showed that 81.8% of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with their employees regarding investigation results and related administrative actions, and only 4.7% were dissatisfied (Compile Group, 2022).

1.4 The environment enabling research integrity is developing

In the past decade, the Chinese government has promoted adherence to research integrity norms and guided researchers to do so by reforming the science and technology evaluation system, advocating good research practice, strengthening the release of misconduct cases and checking research integrity status in project applications and reviews. Publicity about research integrity within the scientific community in China is widely conducted. Discussions and debates on research integrity by famous scientists have significantly promoted awareness of research integrity in the scientific community. In 2017, a survey of more than 48,000 science and technology professionals showed that 30.8% had knowledge of their peers receiving ‘gift authorship’ (CAST, 2017)—a finding 9% lower than in 2013 and 13% lower than in 2008 (CAST, 2013). The 2017 survey also indicated that 22.5% had knowledge of their peers’ plagiarism—lower by 3.5% from 2013 and 7.3% from 2008. Similarly, 20.7% had knowledge of their peers’ fabrication or falsification behaviour—a finding that was lower by 10.1% from 2013 and 15% from 2008 (CAST, 2013, 2017). Those results indicated that research misconduct has obviously decreased over the past 10 years in the view of Chinese researchers.

2. Challenges

2.1 Training and education in research integrity is insufficient

China's effort in this endeavour is still insufficient when compared to the efforts in developed countries. In particular, there is low availability of relevant research integrity materials and information. Most universities have not built web pages to provide basic materials for research integrity, such as guidelines on good research practices, learning materials and government regulations related to research integrity, greatly inconveniencing both students and researchers. The shortage of research integrity professionals makes it difficult to carry out the relevant training and education.

2.2 Research integrity management in universities and RIs needs improvement

Few universities and RIs have set up research integrity offices (RIOs). For most universities and RIs, the management of research integrity is mainly incorporated into their science and technology offices, academic committees and other internal departments. Also, management staff are insufficient and lack the necessary research integrity knowledge and enough time to meet their responsibilities. Furthermore, funds provided by universities and RIs cannot meet the needs of research integrity management, thereby reducing its effectiveness and efficiency.

2.3 Management faces a large workload of misconduct investigations

The number of newly published papers by Chinese authors but retracted due to misconduct continues to increase. The Retraction Watch Database has recorded about 200 retracted articles by Chinese authors each year. In addition, the wide application of new tools, such as text recheck and image recognition, has uncovered some previously unrecognized misconduct. Hence, management at various levels faces a large workload of misconduct investigations. Some cases may involve the leader of an institution or established scientists, further complicating the investigation. However, this problem in the investigation process is also common in other countries (NSTC, 2022).

2.4 The science and technology revolution has brought new challenges to research integrity management

The rapid development of science and technology may have made identifying research misconduct even more difficult. The adaptation of the traditional methods of identifying, investigating and treating misconduct will be challenging given the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), big data, quantum physics, new materials and other emerging and interdisciplinary fields. Universities, RIs and government departments lack suitable new instruments to identify research misconduct in a timely manner and respond to it in this scenario.

3. Suggestions

3.1 The research integrity management system should be improved

All governments at different levels, as well as universities and RIs, must strengthen the advocacy of research integrity, coordinate the response to major misconduct, break the isolation of research integrity information among governments and various institutions and promote responsible research in emerging fields such as AI. Studies on research integrity in emerging fields should be enhanced, and blockchain, AI and other new technologies should be adopted for use in research integrity management. Understanding the effectiveness of a given policy requires the regular assessment of research integrity at the national level.

3.2 The responsibility of universities and RIs for research integrity should be strengthened

The capacity and function of research integrity management in universities and RIs should be reinforced. NSFC and other public funders should guide (in a manner similar to that of their international counterparts) funded institutions in the management of responsible research and make the conducting of research integrity training and submitting research integrity commitments and annual reports a precondition for universities and RIs applying for funding (HHS, 2005; US Congress, 2007). Universities and RIs should strengthen research integrity management by establishing RIOs or research integrity specialist positions, formulating guidelines for responsible research and creating websites that provide easy access to information on norms and standards for research integrity, typical misconduct cases and the process for investigating misconduct. Above all, education and training for students and researchers should be widely and continuously conducted. Research integrity courses should be compulsory for university students.

3.3 The role of the scientific community should be enhanced

The scientific community is more professional in promoting research integrity than the government. The Chinese scientific community must create common guidelines and norms for research integrity and identify types and related definitions of misconduct in specific disciplines. The community can do more work on increasing researchers’ awareness of research integrity, as well as actively participate in the investigation of cases. The community can take the opportunity to use annual meetings and forums to discuss and exchange research integrity knowledge and experience, thus improving research integrity within the community.

3.4 Research integrity education should be strengthened

There is a global consensus that research integrity education plays an important role in improving research integrity. It is another area that China needs to strengthen. A nationwide education and training system for research integrity covering universities, RIs, academic groups and researchers needs to be established. The government should support the training of professionals, curriculum development and the study of research integrity. Moreover, the research integrity educational curriculum could be enhanced as compulsory coursework for undergraduates and postgraduates to improve awareness and abilities relating to responsible research.

3.5 International exchanges and cooperation should be increased

International exchanges and cooperation on the issue of research integrity will help facilitate mutual trust and understanding. Chinese universities, RIs and scholars should be encouraged and supported in their participation in international exchanges and cooperation on research integrity, including attending international conferences such as the World Conference on Research Integrity, carrying out joint research with foreign scholars and holding international conferences in China. Through international exchanges and cooperation, China could learn more about good practices in research integrity in other countries and harmonize Chinese norms, standards and guidelines on research integrity with the best international practices. Government departments and agencies, universities and RIs are encouraged to establish English-language websites to introduce their research integrity work to promote the understanding of foreign academia concerning the progress of research integrity in China.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Yao Yang is an assistant researcher at the National Center for Science and Technology Evaluation (NCSTE). He holds a PhD in entomology and is a postdoctoral researcher engaging in science, technology and innovation (STI) policy research and evaluation. His research interests include research integrity, STI strategy and policy evaluation, and insect evolutionary biology. He has presided over and participated in more than 20 national and ministerial projects in those areas.

Weixiao Cao is an assistant researcher at NCSTE. She holds a PhD in public administration from Peking University. Her research interests include research integrity, the management of major international scientific programmes, and science and technology (S&T) evaluation. She has presided over the general programme of the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation and several provincial projects.

Xiaoyong Shi is a research fellow and the head of the Department of Innovation Strategy Research at NCSTE. He joined NCSTE in 2005 and is engaged in research and evaluation of S&T strategy and policy. During the 17 years of his professional career, he has hosted a series of researches and evaluations concerning S&T plans, programmes, policies and megaprojects. In 2013 and 2014, he served as a policy analyst in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

References

CAST (China Association for Science and Technology) (2013) The Third National Survey Report on Chinese S&T Professionals. Beijing: China Science and Technology Press (in Chinese).

CAST (China Association for Science and Technology) (2017) The Fourth National Survey Report on Chinese S&T Professionals. Beijing: China Science and Technology Press (in Chinese).

Compile Group (Compile Group of the Blue Book of China’s Research Integrity Construction) (2022) Blue Book of China’s Research Integrity Construction 2021. Beijing: Scientific and Technical Documentation Press (in Chinese).

CPCCC (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China) and State Council (2018) Opinions on further strengthening research integrity. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2018-05/30/content_5294886.htm (accessed 10 November 2022, in Chinese).

CPCCC (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China) and State Council (2019) Opinions on further promoting the spirit of scientists and strengthening the style of work and study. Available at: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-06/11/content_5399239.htm (accessed 10 November 2022, in Chinese).

Cyranoski

(2017) China cracks down on fake peer reviews. Nature 546(7659): 464.

HHS (US Department of Health and Human Services) (2005) Public health service policies on research misconduct. Available at: https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/42_cfr_parts_50_and_93_2005.pdf (accessed 10 November 2022).

Mallapaty

(2020) China’s research-misconduct rules target ‘paper mills’ that churn out fake studies. Nature. Epub ahead of print 21 August 2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-02445-8.

NPC (National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China) (2021) Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Progress of Science and Technology. Available at: https://www.most.gov.cn/xxgk/xinxifenlei/fdzdgknr/fgzc/flfg/202201/t20220118_179043.html (accessed 10 November 2022, in Chinese).

10.

NSTC (Science Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee of the National Science and Technology Council) (2022) Protecting the integrity of government science. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22-Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.pdf (accessed 10 November 2022).

11.

Stigbrand

(2017) Retraction note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology. Tumor Biology. Epub ahead of print 20 April 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6.

12.

US Congress (2007) The America creating opportunities to meaningfully promote excellence in technology, education and science act. Available at: https://science.house.gov/bills/the-america-creating-opportunities-to-meaningfully-promote-excellence-in-technology-education-and-science-act-competes (accessed 10 November 2022).