The continuing barriers to research in China

Tang, Jin‐Ling

doi:10.1503/cmaj.100035

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to other studies,[ 15 ] we found that insufficient foreign language skills is an important barrier. Inability to identify trending research areas is another important barrier demanding more attention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Barriers to participation in medical research from the perspective of researchers

Safdari

Ehtesham

Robiaty

et al. 2018

J Edu Health Promot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:The first step toward organizing research activities is to obtain a correct perception of available capabilities. This study was conducted to investigate the researchers’ views about barriers affecting research activities.METHODS:This descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted using the census method. The population consisted of the faculty members of Birjand University of Medical Sciences in 2014. The research tool was a questionnaire in six areas of financial, facility, professional, scientific, personal, and organizational– managerial barriers. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Friedman test.RESULTS:Faculty members confirmed that although all barriers affected research activities, organizational–managerial barriers (3.73 ± 0.63) had the greatest and scientific barriers (3.15 ± 0.93) had the lowest effect, respectively. The results of Friedman test showed that there is a significant difference between the mean values of factors related to various barriers affecting research activities from the viewpoint of the participants’ answers.CONCLUSIONS:Research activities are affected by numerous barriers. Strategies, such as empowering researchers, employing new technologies in the creation of research teams, and benefiting from research experts in various stages of research, may have a positive effect on the removal of the barriers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Barriers to participation in medical research from the perspective of researchers

Safdari

Ehtesham

Robiaty

et al. 2018

J Edu Health Promot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…International differences in the importance of individualism in society (Hofstede, 1980) may influence the extent to which researchers are inclined to collaborate. There are also country-specific funding regimes and research policies that may incentivise collaboration (Cao, Li, Li, & Liu, 2013;Tang, 2010), as well as differing national junior researcher mentoring strategies (e.g., Zhai, Su, & Ye, 2014). National challenges for scientific publication may also be helped by teamwork, such as language barriers (Brant & Rassouli, 2018;Duracinsky, Lalanne, Rous, Dara, Baudoin, Pellet, & Chassany, 2017;Tang, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are also country-specific funding regimes and research policies that may incentivise collaboration (Cao, Li, Li, & Liu, 2013;Tang, 2010), as well as differing national junior researcher mentoring strategies (e.g., Zhai, Su, & Ye, 2014). National challenges for scientific publication may also be helped by teamwork, such as language barriers (Brant & Rassouli, 2018;Duracinsky, Lalanne, Rous, Dara, Baudoin, Pellet, & Chassany, 2017;Tang, 2010). For example, a country in which English fluency is rare may regard literature reviewing and writing as a specialist task rather than a universal skill.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields

Thelwall

Maflahi

2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalised citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the ten countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008-2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two thirds more authors per article than the UK (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the UK (27%). Whilst increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact.

show abstract

“…For example, as Qiu points out, exaggeration of the ‘publish or perish’ culture in Mainland Chinese universities, may have incentivized forms of academic misconduct that were conducive to publishing a large quantity of papers, of low or questionable quality . Tang neatly summarizes the point: ‘Although China now benefits increasingly from its scientific research and technologic development … some of the barriers to research in that country – [include] the way research funding is allocated; the way researchers are rewarded; the negative image of Chinese research following isolated but publicized episodes of deceit; the limited language skills of researchers; the money researchers make; and, to some extent, the way medical students are taught’ …”

Section: Background Of Research In Hong Kong and Chinamentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective

Jordan¹,

Gray²

2012

Developing World Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In their 2010 article 'Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects', Zeng and Resnik challenge others to engage in empirical research on research integrity in China. Here we respond to that call in three ways: first, we provide updates to their analysis of regulations and allegations of scientific misconduct; second, we report on two surveys conducted in Hong Kong that provide empirical backing to describe ways in which problems and prospects that Zeng and Resnik identify are being explored; and third, we continue the discussion started by Zeng and Resnik, pointing to ways in which China's high-profile participation in international academic research presents concerns about research integrity. According to our research, based upon searches of both English and Chinese language literature and policies, and two surveys conducted in Hong Kong, academic faculty and research post-graduate students in Hong Kong are aware of and have a positive attitude towards responsible conduct of research. Although Hong Kong is but one small part of China, we present this research as a response to concerns Zeng and Resnik introduce and as a call for a continued conversation.

show abstract

The continuing barriers to research in China

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Barriers to participation in medical research from the perspective of researchers

Barriers to participation in medical research from the perspective of researchers

Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields

Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About