The “urgent need for training for students and researchers at all levels in China”

Regular readers of this blog will know of my long-standing concerns regarding the trustworthiness of research, particularly when it originates from China. I have addressed these issues many times, e.g.:

• Research misconduct in China: an ever increasing worry
• Increasing concerns about SCAM research originating from China
• Concerning developments in acupuncture research: is there something rotten in the state of China?
• If you cannot argue against your critic, have him jailed (a chilling story from China)
• Data fabrication in China is an ‘open secret’
• Acupuncture versus Sham Acupuncture for Chronic Sciatica – another finding that is too good to be true?
• A TCM mixture improves the prognosis of heart attacks? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!
• Beware of Chinese acupuncture trials!
• Acupuncture for pain: plenty of useless papers and very little reliable evidence
• A meta-analysis of Chinese herbal medicine for lowering blood pressure
• JAMA just published another truly awful acupuncture study
• More compelling reasons for distrusting Chinese research papers
• A new acupuncture trial with a positive result – alas, it seems too good to be true
• Acupuncture for the prevention of headache? How to fool (almost) everyone with an RCT
• Acupuncture for male infertility (MI): a story of sloppy research endangering public health
• Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicine: It’s a process akin to money laundering
• Disgracefully low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture

Now, some further relevant insights into these issues have emerged. A survey was conducted through a collaboration between international publisher Taylor & Francis and the National Science Library at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). It involved 1,777 students, researchers, and librarians from China, and revealed significant uncertainty about research and publishing ethics:

• 35.9% of respondents were unsure about the responsibilities involved in article authorship, with master students showing the highest levels of confusion.
• A considerable number of respondents reported engaging in ‘gift authorship’ – either adding an author to a paper or agreeing to be named as an author without meeting proper authorship criteria.
• 31% of respondents reported using services offered by third parties to help with publishing in international journals. A concerning number considered activities typically associated with paper mills acceptable, such as writing parts of a paper or adding authors and citations chosen by the agent.
• Only 55.4% of the survey respondents stated that they had access to any training in ethics and integrity, with an even smaller proportion having formal training.

The study’s authors conclude that researchers at all levels need timely, accessible, and suitable training in research integrity and publishing ethics. This training should include undergraduates and those at institutions responsible for upholding overall integrity standards. Essential topics such as authorship responsibilities and working with ethical third-party manuscript services must be part of mandatory training.

Dr Sabina Alam, Director of Publishing Ethics & Integrity at Taylor & Francis, said: “Our survey findings highlight the urgent need for training for students and researchers at all levels in China, a need we believe is also present for many students and researchers across the world. Without this, the knowledge gaps we’ve found leave researchers susceptible to exploitation by unethical organisations, such as paper mills, and many might unknowingly engage in misconduct. It’s understandable that 80% of those who responded to our survey are concerned about the impact of research integrity issues on the trustworthiness of research publications,” Alam added. “Partnerships between publishers and research institutions will be crucial for tackling global research integrity challenges, including developing and implementing comprehensive training in research integrity and publishing ethics. A key reason for our collaboration with the National Science Library at CAS was to explore important issues, and we believe these results from our Joint Lab demonstrate the benefits of working together in this way.”

______________________

I think I should stress that these data and remarks apply to all types of research. The situation in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) research is clearly more severe. This, I think, is true worldwide but particularly acute for research originating from China.