Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 629–645 | Cite as

Perceptions of Chinese Biomedical Researchers Towards Academic Misconduct: A Comparison Between 2015 and 2010

  • Qing-Jiao Liao
  • Yuan-Yuan Zhang
  • Yu-Chen Fan
  • Ming-Hua Zheng
  • Yu Bai
  • Guy D. Eslick
  • Xing-Xiang He
  • Shi-Bing Zhang
  • Harry Hua-Xiang XiaEmail author
  • Hua HeEmail author
Original Paper


Publications by Chinese researchers in scientific journals have dramatically increased over the past decade; however, academic misconduct also becomes more prevalent in the country. The aim of this prospective study was to understand the perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct and the trend from 2010 to 2015. A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was designed and then validated by ten biomedical researchers in China. In the years 2010 and 2015, respectively, the questionnaire was sent as a survey to biomedical researchers at teaching hospitals, universities, and medical institutes in mainland China. Data were analyzed by the Chi squared test, one-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test, or Spearman’s rank correlation method, where appropriate. The overall response rates in 2010 and 2015 were 4.5% (446/9986) and 5.5% (832/15,127), respectively. Data from 15 participants in 2010 were invalid, and analysis was thus performed for 1263 participants. Among the participants, 54.7% thought that academic misconduct was serious-to-extremely serious, and 71.2% believed that the Chinese authorities paid no or little attention to the academic misconduct. Moreover, 70.2 and 65.2% of participants considered that the punishment for academic misconduct at the authority and institution levels, respectively, was not appropriate or severe enough. Inappropriate authorship and plagiarism were the most common forms of academic misconduct. The most important factor underlying academic misconduct was the academic assessment system, as judged by 50.7% of the participants. Participants estimated that 40.1% (39.8 ± 23.5% in 2010; 40.2 ± 24.5% in 2015) of published scientific articles were associated with some form of academic misconduct. Their perceptions towards academic misconduct had not significantly changed over the 5 years. Reform of the academic assessment system should be the fundamental approach to tackling this problem in China.


Academic misconduct Questionnaire Inappropriate authorship Plagiarism Academic assessment 



The authors would like to thank Li-Zheng Chen for sending/posting the survey and collecting the data, and Wan-Chen Hu for helping with the graphics.

The poster entitled “perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: a comparison between 2015 and 2010” was awarded the best poster at the 2016 Council of Science Editor (CSE)’s Annual Meeting.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

No support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Data Sharing Statement

Extra data are available by emailing the corresponding authors.

Supplementary material

11948_2017_9913_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)
11948_2017_9913_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (175 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 175 kb)


  1. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  2. China Association for Science and Technology. (2015). Accessed March 21, 2017.
  3. Chopra, V., & Eagle, K. A. (2012). Perioperative mischief: The price of academic misconduct. American Journal of Medicine, 125, 953–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corbyn, Z. (2012). Misconduct is the main cause of life-sciences retractions. Nature, 490(7418), 21. doi: 10.1038/490021a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4, e5738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Lariviere, V. (2015). Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity. PLoS ONE, 10, e0127556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 17028–17033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He, H., & Xia, H.-X. (2014). Science citation index papers and research performance assessment: An overview of editing companies. Medicine & Philosophy, 35(10A), 4–7.Google Scholar
  10. Hvistendahl, M. (2013). China’s publication bazaar. Science, 342, 1035–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hvistendahl, M. (2015). Academic misconduct. China pursues fraudsters in science publishing. Science, 350, 1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Institute of Scientific & Technical Information of China. (2016).正文2016_2国际.pdf. Accessed March 22, 2017 (in Chinese).
  13. Kim, J., & Park, K. (2013). Ethical modernization: Research misconduct and research ethics reforms in Korea following the Hwang affair. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19, 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lancaster, C. (2016). The acid test for biological science: STAP cells, trust, and replication. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Medjaden. (2015). Accessed March 21, 2017 (in Chinese).
  16. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2016). Accessed March 21, 2017.
  17. Oksvold, M. P. (2016). Incidence of data duplications in a randomly selected pool of life science publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Patnaik, P. R. (2016). Scientific misconduct in India: Causes and perpetuation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1245–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pupovac, V., & Fanelli, D. (2015). Scientists admitting to plagiarism: A meta-analysis of surveys. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 1331–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pupovac, V., Prijić-Samaržija, S., & Petrovečki, M. (2017). Research misconduct in the Croatian scientific community: A survey assessing the forms and characteristics of research misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sever, P., MacGregor, G., & Schachter, M. (2015). Commentary. Journal of Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System, 16, 701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhang, Y. (2010). Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature, 467, 153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medjaden Bioscience LimitedHong KongChina
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacology, West China School of Preclinical and Forensic MedicineSichuan UniversityChengduChina
  3. 3.Department of HepatologyQilu Hospital of Shandong UniversityJinanChina
  4. 4.Department of Infection and Liver Diseases, Liver Research CenterFirst Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouChina
  5. 5.Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai HospitalSecond Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina
  6. 6.Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Discipline of SurgerySydney Medical School NepeanPenrithAustralia
  7. 7.Department of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated HospitalGuangdong Pharmaceutical UniversityGuangdongChina

Personalised recommendations