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

被引:21
作者
Yi, Nannan [1 ,2 ]
Nemery, Benoit [3 ]
Dierickx, Kris [1 ]
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Ctr Biomed Eth & Law, Kapucijnenvoer 35,Blok D,Box 7001, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium
[2] Southeast Univ, Dept Med Humanities, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[3] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Ctr Environm & Hlth, Leuven, Belgium
来源
ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE | 2019年 / 26卷 / 07期
关键词
Research integrity; research misconduct; academic morality; Chinese biomedical research; Europe; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; AUTHORSHIP; GUIDANCE;
D O I
10.1080/08989621.2019.1652096
中图分类号
R-052 [医学伦理学];
学科分类号
0101 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Research misconduct has been a threat to Chinese biomedical research. Despite many publications dealing with research integrity in China, little empirical data is available concerning Chinese biomedical researchers' perceptions of research integrity and misconduct. To learn more about this issue, we interviewed Chinese biomedical researchers in Europe to investigate their perceptions of this issue. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 participants until data saturation was reached. The findings indicate that certain aspects of research integrity need elaboration among Chinese biomedical researchers. Participants had a vague understanding of general concepts related to research integrity. Data fabrication, data falsification and plagiarism were perceived as the most severe deviance. Inappropriate authorship (especially gift authorship) and ghost writing were regarded as the most prevalent types of research misconduct in Chinese biomedical research. The harms of certain practices, such as inappropriate authorship, salami publication and multiple submission, were not well recognized. Attitudes toward research misconduct were divided. The current scientific evaluation system, pressures of promotion, motives for fame and other factors were perceived as the main reasons for research misconduct. Participants suggested various measures in addition to existing safeguards to improve research integrity in Chinese biomedical research.
引用
收藏
页码:405 / 426
页数:22
相关论文
共 67 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2017, NEW REC MAJ PUBL RET
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2018, POLITICAL ADVISOR EN
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2017, The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2015, GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP E
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2015, LANCET, V385, P1365
  • [6] Scientific Misconduct and Medical Journals
    Bauchner, Howard
    Fontanarosa, Phil B.
    Flanagin, Annette
    Thornton, Joe
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 320 (19): : 1985 - 1987
  • [7] Authorship issues
    Bavdekar, Sandeep B.
    [J]. LUNG INDIA, 2012, 29 (01) : 76 - 80
  • [8] BENYEHUDA N, 1986, BRIT J CRIMINOL, V26, P1
  • [9] European Universities' Guidance on Research Integrity and Misconduct: Accessibility, Approaches, and Content
    Bonn, Noemie Aubert
    Godecharle, Simon
    Dierickx, Kris
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS, 2017, 12 (01) : 33 - 44
  • [10] How researchers perceive research misconduct in biomedicine and how they would prevent it: A qualitative study in a small scientific community
    Buljan, Ivan
    Barac, Lana
    Marusic, Ana
    [J]. ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH-POLICIES AND QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2018, 25 (04): : 220 - 238