The harm of academic misconduct

Academic misconduct damages the reputation of the scientific community and hinders scientific progress. The significance of learning lies in seeking truth, which should be the lofty duty of every scholar, and honesty should also be the most basic attitude in academic research. It is difficult to find what kind of human activities emphasize the truth like academics, and scholars are respected by the public and even regarded as the conscience of society. If the reputation of the scientific community is seriously damaged by frequent academic misconduct, the image of scientific research in the public mind will be tarnished, which will inevitably hinder the progress of science, because scientific research needs the support of the whole society, the provision of scientific research funds and a better scientific research environment. Without these factors, science can hardly develop.

Academic misconduct also directly harms the interests of the public. Scientific research is largely funded by the state, and academic fraud is a waste of taxpayers' money. Some academic fraud is in collusion with economic corruption. In order to promote counterfeit drugs and products, it is cheating consumers' money and endangering their health.

Academic misconduct violates academic norms and causes unfair competition between scientific research resources and academic status. If plagiarism, fabricating data, and fabricating academic resumes can produce academic achievements, gain academic reputation, and occupy a relatively high academic position, then people who seriously engage in scientific research are not as good as counterfeiters. Moreover, academic fraud also misled peers. If someone believes in false academic achievements and tries to do further research on this basis, it will inevitably waste time, money and energy, and even affect the degree acquisition and position promotion. People who are most directly hurt by counterfeiters are often people in the same laboratory and research field.

Therefore, everyone has the right to maintain academic norms and academic ethics, and maintaining academic norms and academic ethics is also protecting their own interests.

China Association for Science and Technology should improve the integrity files of scientific and technical personnel to prevent academic misconduct.

China news agency, Beijing, May 26th (Reporter Sun Zifa) The China Association for Science and Technology, known as the "home of scientific and technological workers", requested to establish and improve the integrity files of scientific and technological workers, conduct credit supervision on personnel and institutions undertaking national scientific and technological projects and engaging in related management, strengthen the construction of scientific research ethics, and prevent academic misconduct.

The Seventh Congress of China Association for Science and Technology, which closed on 26th, adopted Several Opinions on Mobilizing and Organizing Scientific and Technological Workers to Make New Contributions to Building an Innovative Country, and made the above appeal in this Several Opinions which paid more attention to the construction of scientific and technological ethics and style of study.

China Association for Science and Technology emphasizes that scientific and technological workers should consciously resist academic misconduct such as mutual flattery and seeking fame and reputation, and fight against unhealthy phenomena such as fraud and plagiarism. In scientific and technological activities such as declaration, recommendation, evaluation, appraisal, defense and reward, we should weaken the concepts of "official standard" and "star effect" and fully respect different opinions in the academic field. It is necessary to organically combine academic self-discipline with public opinion supervision to safeguard the academic dignity and professional ethics of scientific and technological workers.

Scientific research units and scientific and technological organizations shall formulate scientific ethics conventions, standardize and encourage academic criticism, and correct the style of study and research. Strengthen the construction of academic ethics committees, formulate disciplinary systems, and promote the regularization, institutionalization and standardization of the construction of study style. Improve the academic exchange system, improve the peer recognition mechanism, and help young and middle-aged outstanding scientific and technological talents stand out.

Scientific and technological personnel should adhere to the supremacy of national interests, embody the will of the state in various scientific research activities, obey and serve the national interests, keep national scientific and technological secrets, safeguard scientific and technological safety, firmly establish taxpayer awareness, and ensure that scientific and technological activities are conducive to the harmonious development of man and society and man and nature. At the same time, scientific and technological personnel should also protect and use their own intellectual property rights and respect the intellectual property rights of others. Zhou Ji pointed out at the symposium that academic anomie and unhealthy tendencies still exist, and academic misconduct still occurs from time to time, which is still serious in some aspects, damaging the academic image, ruining the academic atmosphere, hindering academic progress and bringing serious negative effects to the cause of science and education. In this regard, seriously investigate and deal with it, and must not be allowed to grow and spread. "No matter who or what is involved, we must have a firm attitude. Once we check it out, we will not be short-sighted, tolerant or soft." He said.

Zhou Ji demanded that efforts should be made to build a punishment and prevention system combining education, system and supervision. To strengthen the construction of academic ethics and study style, purify academic atmosphere and curb academic misconduct, we must treat both the symptoms and root causes, punish and prevent simultaneously, take a multi-pronged approach, comprehensively manage, unify self-discipline with heteronomy, and combine internal management with social supervision. First, strengthen education and guidance, improve the level of moral self-discipline, give full play to moral strength, and do not violate academic ethics; Second, strengthen institutional constraints, standardize academic management, and give full play to institutional strength so that it cannot violate academic ethics; Third, strengthen social supervision, form a good social atmosphere, give full play to social forces, and do not violate academic ethics. At the symposium, Yang Wei, president of Zhejiang University, introduced in detail the plagiarism of He Haibo's paper and its handling.

According to Yang Wei, on June 65438+1October 65438+June 2008, the School of Pharmacy of Zhejiang University received an email reflecting the academic misconduct of He Haibo, an associate professor of the School of Pharmacy. After receiving the mail, the hospital and the school formed an investigation team and investigated the matter on the same day. On June 23rd, 2008, 10, a week after the school began to investigate He Haibo's academic misconduct, the website "New Threads" revealed his behavior of submitting more than one manuscript. After a period of evolution, after the Spring Festival, this incident has attracted extensive attention from many media and all walks of life, and has become a hot topic of public opinion.

After graduating from Ph.D. in June, 2006, He Haibo studied in the postdoctoral mobile station of pharmacy of Zhejiang University, and the co-tutor was Academician Li. Li is the dean of the School of Pharmacy appointed by the school.

In the whole process of "He Haibo's Thesis Incident", the school * * * examined 20 papers of He Hai and related personnel suspected of academic ethics in its research room, including 9 papers involving He Haibo. Except for 1 paper as co-author, He Haibo's eight papers as the first author all have serious academic misconduct in varying degrees, such as plagiarism, copying the experimental data of the original doctoral supervisor, two manuscripts, some charts and figures, repeated publication, unauthorized signature of others' names, unauthorized marking of fund support, fabricating well-known experts to help improve English, etc. In view of the conclusive problem, I confessed, and the school immediately punished him: in June 2005, it was decided to revoke his position and qualification as an associate professor and terminate the employment contract. Because of the extremely serious consequences of He's behavior outside China, the school decided to excommunicate him.

The correspondent of eight papers with academic falsification in He Haibo is Associate Professor Wu XX, Director of Pharmacology Research Office of Traditional Chinese Medicine in our school. According to the investigation of nearly four months, there is no evidence that Wu directly participated in the writing and preliminary submission of the above papers; However, after some of He Haibo's problem papers were hired or published, he took the unshirkable responsibility as a correspondent to apply for the project. I also have problems such as repeated publication of academic papers; In addition, the supervision of the study style in the laboratory of traditional Chinese medicine is out of order, and as the director of the laboratory, he is seriously negligent in management. On the basis of finding out the facts, a decision was made: the assistant to the director of Wu Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the director of the Pharmacology Research Office of Traditional Chinese Medicine were removed, and the administrative record was given a heavier punishment and the employment contract was terminated.

According to the statements of all relevant personnel, handwriting identification and other existing materials, why did Academician Li's signature in eight papers involving academic fraud in He Haibo be signed without his knowledge? There is no evidence to prove that Li was involved in paper fraud and plagiarism. As the dean, academic leader and cooperative tutor, Academician Li is responsible for the neglect of management, poor education and lax supervision of the He Haibo incident. The current dean's term expires and the school will not renew his appointment. Yang, president of Fudan University, analyzed that the phenomenon of "academic anomie" in China has been repeatedly banned. First of all, scholars lack self-awareness of their identity as "public intellectuals" and forget that "public intellectuals" represent public interests and stick to the universal values and ideals in national culture and human civilization. In addition, the media's own reports on "academic research" have also cast many unrealistic "auras" on it, giving it an artificial "mystery" and lacking academic spirit and rigor. This kind of "advertising" academic report by the media is often difficult for experts with slightly different research fields to understand and often misleads the public, but it has won some practical benefits for academic institutions and individuals. A "hidden power" of this practice comes from the academic evaluation, evaluation and evaluation system that has been popular for many years and seriously deviates from the academic spirit, and its harmfulness must be highly valued.

Zhou Qifeng, president of Peking University, said that moral anomie and behavioral anomie often occur in academic activities. Some scholars violate the purpose of academic research, or are eager for quick success and instant benefit, and are shoddy; Or flatter the world and be keen on hype; What's more, they lost their academic ethics and traded plagiarism for temporary fame and fortune. Although these behaviors and phenomena are individual, if they are not restricted, they will seriously pollute the academic environment, affect academic reputation, hinder academic progress, and then affect the innovation and development of the entire academic community.

Zhou Qifeng pointed out that the construction of academic ethics should adhere to four principles: first, to create an academic atmosphere in which academic freedom and academic norms are harmonious and unified; Second, build a control mechanism that organically combines institutional norms with self-discipline; Third, we should establish an educational means that pre-prevention and post-treatment complement each other, and adopt different forms of punishment according to the severity of academic misconduct. At the same time, pay attention to the prevention mechanism of academic anomie to avoid the occurrence of potential academic anomie. Fourth, build a performance evaluation system that pays equal attention to performance and substance.

In the computer age, using cut and paste is too easy. When scientists abandon the research spirit and copy scientific achievements by cutting and pasting, they are inevitably disappointed. In its report, Science published a list of "potential plagiarists" listed by a research team. The average similarity between the scientific papers written by the authors on these lists and the previously published papers was 86.2%.

The United States found that the plagiarism rate of scientists from China and Japan increased slightly. The research team reported in the journal Nature that about 200% of the papers were plagiarized according to the study of samples in the PubMed database of the US federal government.

The team used computer programs to detect about 9000 suspicious duplicate PubMed database materials. The research team then sent 163 questionnaires to potential plagiarists, originators of plagiarized papers and editors who published scientific journals, and they received 144 responses. The research team pointed out that the responses of the respondents were strong and varied, with 93% of the original authors saying they didn't know or disagreed with plagiarism, while the responses of potential plagiarists were more varied: 28% denied plagiarism, 35% admitted their mistakes and expressed regret, 22% claimed to be * * * co-authors, but they didn't participate in writing the manuscript, and some claimed that they didn't know about other studies. An author who repeated other people's papers said in the questionnaire, "It's like a joke, a bad game, or a confused bet between friends." This happened 10 years ago, and I am deeply sorry. The research team found that this deeply regretted "clown" still has eight papers to repeat with others. He is the head of an ethics committee in his country.

Research shows that plagiarized papers come from all over the world, including an article from Harvard University. However, the proportion of China and Japan increased slightly, and some researchers reported that the plagiarism standards in some countries were too loose. The most shocking thing is plagiarism in the medical field, which may affect doctors' diagnosis and patients' treatment. In addition, about 42% of the repeated papers also include tampering with data, calculations or images. Doctors decide the treatment plan according to the data, and scientists make research decisions according to the experimental results, so it is very worrying to fabricate data in plagiarism research.

The most serious plagiarism is self-plagiarism, that is, researchers repeat their papers and old data over and over again in different journals. The research team found that cases of self-plagiarism were eight times as many as other cases. Ghana, a group of researchers, said that scientists are also human beings, and many colleges and universities have no choice but to publish their own articles repeatedly. According to a survey published in the journal Nature, about 3% researchers are found to have scientific misconduct every year, mainly falsifying data and plagiarism. In the past decade, cases that shocked the scientific community included stem cell researcher Huang Yuxi falsifying data and Bell Laboratories genius JanHendrikSchn falsifying experimental results.

Of course, the above behavior only accounts for a very small number of all scientific research results. Ghana, a staff member of the research team, said, "Although the number of published (repeated papers) seems to be a lot, you must remember that there are 1.8 million papers, and more than 95% of the research in PubMed database is the result of high quality and meticulous efforts." Ghana said, "We just hope that high standards of scientific spirit are everywhere." (Little He Lu) (Source: People's Daily Online-International Channel)

The radical cure of academic misconduct cannot rely entirely on the severe punishment after the behavior is discovered. Scholars consciously practice academic norms is the fundamental solution. However, when this awareness is still very weak, it is extremely important to punish academic misconduct. Special education on academic norms is also essential to prevent misconduct caused by ignorance of academic norms. Of course, in addition to the teaching of academic norms, teachers' own rigorous academic style has a better demonstration effect on students.