After Chinese science blogger "Geng Tongxue" successively reported fraud by several university scholars, causing a stir in academic circles, state media Xinhua News Agency published an investigative report on Tuesday (May 26), pointing out the existence of absurd and crude data in papers. Researchers from national-level scientific research institutions also cited their own experiences, stating that research offices mostly serve a "record-keeping" function rather than substantive review.
The report is titled "Wearing Shiny Titles, Absurd and Crude Data in Papers—An Investigation into Reports of Alleged Academic Misconduct by Senior Talents at Many Universities."
The report quotes several interviewees as saying that this wave of academic fraud-busting has attracted attention, on the one hand, because of the large number, high rank, and wide influence of the scholars involved, who hold titles such as "Changjiang Scholar," "Outstanding Youth," "Dean," and have received various project grants. On the other hand, it is because the exposed means of fabricating data are so crude that even people unfamiliar with science find them absurd.
As for why such obvious issues went undetected until exposed by outsiders, the report mentions several reasons, namely the culture of honorary authorship, whether universities and research institutes actually review papers, and the assessment orientation of "the more the better."
As for why such obvious issues went undetected until exposed by outsiders, the report mentions several reasons, namely the culture of honorary authorship, whether universities and research institutes actually review papers, and the assessment orientation of "the more the better."
According to interviewed researchers, titles like "Changjiang Scholar" and "Outstanding Youth" are often accompanied by administrative promotions, with many focusing their energy on administration and spending much less time on front-line research. But in order to maintain their titles, or climb even higher, they may choose to take credit for team members' research results.
An academic who recently published a paper in a top journal admitted that the bigger the "big shot," the more likely they are to overlook or neglect the authenticity and reliability of papers: "They are too busy, and they may not even know what their teams are working on."
On whether universities and research institutes review papers, a researcher from a national-level research institution also said: "Project teams submit the relevant paper data to the research office for the record; academic integrity mainly depends on the self-discipline of the group." He added that there are simply too many papers involving too many specialties for research offices to realistically review everything.
Many universities and research institutes are accused of having no incentive to proactively investigate academic misconduct. The report quotes several interviewees as saying that metrics such as papers in top journals are required achievements for applying for "hats" and benefits, and are key references for subject evaluation and rankings at universities and institutes. When the hard task is to produce output, but quality control relies on "soft constraints," the line of defense against misconduct is virtually non-existent.
In addition, a data platform head who has long collaborated with journals pointed out that some journal editors are susceptible to lobbying and lack sufficient professional review capability; thus, issues at the journal level should not be overlooked.
The report says that, according to nearly ten interviewees, although some progress has been made in this round of anti-fraud efforts, such case-by-case corrections are hard to sustain. Only by advancing at the systemic and institutional level can research integrity be improved.
Interviewees called for further implementation of relevant policies to hold universities and research institutes fully accountable for preventing and addressing academic misconduct, with "zero tolerance" and swift action for violations.
They also suggested shifting the focus from a "numbers game" of publishing papers and top-journal articles to fostering an environment focused on nurturing talent and conducting research. "Researcher evaluations should focus on their contribution to moral education, original innovation, industrial empowerment, and actual contributions to national strategy."