Perceptions of research integrity and the Chinese situation: In-depth interviews with Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe

Yi, Nannan; Nemery, Benoît; Dierickx, Kris

doi:10.1080/08989621.2019.1652096

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have previously proposed that wrongly identified nucleotide sequences in the context of repetitive and superficially justified gene research could reflect the external involvement of organisations such as paper mills ( 8 , 13 , 24 , 26 ). Although researchers in different countries may use paper mills to meet publication targets or quotas ( 47 ), paper mills have been most widely discussed in the context of academics and medical doctors in China ( 25 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ). Stringent publication requirements may represent a particular challenge for hospital doctors in China, where some hospital doctors have described limited time, training and/or opportunities to undertake research ( 25 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although researchers in different countries may use paper mills to meet publication targets or quotas ( 47 ), paper mills have been most widely discussed in the context of academics and medical doctors in China ( 25 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ). Stringent publication requirements may represent a particular challenge for hospital doctors in China, where some hospital doctors have described limited time, training and/or opportunities to undertake research ( 25 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ). While recognising that articles with wrongly identified sequences from hospitals in China may reflect broader literature trends ( 25 , 56 ), the large numbers of human gene research articles with incorrect nucleotide sequences that list hospital affiliations in China could reflect hospital doctors turning to paper mills to meet publication requirements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin molecular techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human research publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check their claimed status. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen >11,700 publications across five literature corpora, including all original publications in Gene from 2007 to 2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014 to 2018. After manually checking Seek & Blastn outputs for >3,400 human research articles, we identified 712 articles across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of >13,700 sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs. The 712 problematic articles have received >17,000 citations, including citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one-quarter of problematic articles may misinform the future development of human therapies, urgent measures are required to address unreliable gene research articles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We designed a questionnaire based on the TURNITIN definition of plagiarism [27], our review of documents on scientific integrity in Chinese universities [28] and an interview study of Chinese scholars based in Europe [29]. The survey contained three parts (see Additional file 1).…”

Section: Survey Instrument Questionnaire Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although we developed the questionnaire on the basis of the Turnitin definition of plagiarism [27] and our previous work [28,29], and carefully elaborated it, we acknowledge that it was not formally validated.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China

Nemery

Dierickx

2020

BMC Med Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Plagiarism is considered as serious research misconduct, together with data fabrication and falsification. However, little is known about biomedical researchers' views on plagiarism. Moreover, it has been arguedbased on limited empirical evidencethat perceptions of plagiarism depend on cultural and other determinants. The authors explored, by means of an online survey among 46 reputable universities in Europe and China, how plagiarism is perceived by biomedical researchers in both regions. Methods: We collected work e-mail addresses of biomedical researchers identified through the websites of 13 reputable universities in Europe and 33 reputable universities in China and invited them to participate in an online anonymous survey. Our questionnaire was designed to assess respondents' views about plagiarism by asking whether they considered specific practices as plagiarism. We analyzed if respondents in China and Europe responded differently, using logistic regression analysis with adjustments for demographic and other relevant factors. Results: The authors obtained valid responses from 204 researchers based in China (response rate 2.1%) and 826 researchers based in Europe (response rate 5.6%). Copying text from someone else's publication without crediting the source, using idea(s) from someone else's publication without crediting the source and republishing one's own work in another language without crediting the source were considered as plagiarism by 98, 67 and 64%, respectively. About one-third of the respondents reported to have been unsure whether they had been plagiarizing. Overall, the pattern of responses was similar among respondents based in Europe and China. Nevertheless, for some items significant differences did occur in disadvantage of Chinese respondents. Conclusions: Findings indicate that nearly all biomedical researchers understand (and disapprove of) the most obvious forms of plagiarism, but uncertainties and doubts were apparent for many aspects. And the minority of researchers who did not recognize some types of plagiarism as plagiarism was larger among China-based respondents than among Europe-based respondents. The authors conclude that biomedical researchers need clearer working definitions of plagiarism in order to deal with grey zones.

show abstract

“…Ghostwriting has more severe effects than one might think. For instance, ghostwriting was perceived to be more prevalent in China (Global Times, 2016;Yi et al, 2019), and while some might consider ghostwriting highly unethical, but its ongoing activity is harmful to the process of scientific inquiry, and it can cost professionals work and others falsely claim expert (Fosko, 2012). Furthermore, in the academic world, tenure is often (if not always) linked to research publication ("publish or perish" has become the motto in many universities), and there is great pressure for academics to publish in scholarly journals (Walsh and Anand, 2018).…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dubious or decisive? Digging deeper into the unchartered path of academic ghostwriting

Svirina

Anand

2021

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to investigate the journey of academic professors who have engaged in ghostwriting.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts qualitative exploratory methods to investigate the ghostwriters' journey into academic ghostwriting. To achieve the goal, the authors interviewed academic ghostwriters, who were working for a diploma mill company, specifically focused on PhD thesis writing in the NIS setting.FindingsThis study revealed several interesting insights from ghostwriter perspective such as the origins and motivation of ghostwriters, ghostwriters life, ghostwriters' careers and impediments faced by them.Originality/valueGiven the dispersed and sensitive nature of the topic, this is one of the few studies to investigate ghostwriting and offer implications.

show abstract

Perceptions of research integrity and the Chinese situation: In-depth interviews with Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe

Cited by 21 publications

References 41 publications

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

Perceptions of plagiarism by biomedical researchers: an online survey in Europe and China

Dubious or decisive? Digging deeper into the unchartered path of academic ghostwriting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About