There is intense pressure to publish as many papers as possible at Chinese universities. This has led to a big problem of faked or just bad research papers coming out of China, so people are generally skeptical of them
As a non-Chinese scientist, I can attest that there is intense pressure to publish as many papers as possible pretty much everywhere, and this leads to a problem of bad research across the world.
China may be among the worst offenders in this respect, but the particular thing the OP is asking about doesn't strike me as a Chinese-specific thing at all. I see non-Chinese scientists rushing half-baked results to arXiv all the time.
> It’s so bad that China’s courts have called for the death penalty for scientific fraud.
To add some context, the death penalty is used much more widely in China than a Westerner might realize, so to them this idea is not quite as radical as it might seem. The PRC government is a bit tight lipped about exact policies, but it's known the death penalty gets employed for things like corruption and even major economic crimes like fraud or money counterfeiting. And of course drug offenses and the violent crimes.
And for speaking out against the power structure. The death penalty for bad action is only if you are on the wrong side politically. Xi’s family is among the wealthiest in the world due to corruption.
Please refrain from whataboutism. We're not discussing Biden or the US. We're discussing the corrupt Chinese elites and the authoritarian regime of the PRC.
Replication is just a nice term for it. It can just as well be a crisis of fraud with the failure of replicating fraudulent results as the consequence.
Scientific fraud and garbage results is a huge problem Everywhere. It's actually big enough to nearly invalidate the entire field of psychology.
“More than everyone else together” is meaningless without considering the relevant population sizes (in this case, the relevant population is “number of researchers producing papers”).
If China has half the worlds academics-writing-papers, one would _expect_ them to be responsible for half the fabricated ones.
Chinese researchers [1] publish fewer total articles in Nature than American ones [2]. It's just one journal, with an admittedly western-leaning audience, but that's what the QZ article focuses on. It does include the caveat that it's possible that translation problems played a bigger role in the Chinese retractions than they did for other countries' retractions, although it would be surprising if that were the only cause of such a widespread problem.
> The move, as Nature explained, groups clinical trial data fraud with counterfeiting so that “if the approved drug causes health problems, it can result in a 10-year prison term or the death penalty, in the case of severe or fatal consequences.”
To be fair, according to TFA the death penalty is only for clinical trials where the drug or procedure, due to faked or doctored data, causes severe or fatal consequences.
It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. You develop a drug that actually kills people but fake your data to show it saves lives. Then you make money while people start dying, essentially killing people because your career was more important than reality. I’d call that murder.
> In the US if you fake data you can become president of Stanford (for a while).
One wonders: is the unearned time as an elite university president worth being humiliated by an 18 year old on the student newspaper and being forced to resign in disgrace?
For me that's an easy no, but others may have different preferences.
It's not biased, it's a fact. I see it all the time as PC/AC/reviwer/etc.
There is deluge of terrible papers from China that are just a mess, below any imaginable standard. Ones that labs in the EU/US/Russia/Japan/etc. don't put out. Yes, everyone has to publish, and there are bad papers out there, but the volume and low quality from China is unmatched.
That is crazy talk. I don't believe it. Korea and Japan both have crazy levels of "face" in their culture (and Taiwan to somewhat less extent), and they all produce huge amounts of high quality scientific papers.
Isn't the population of China much bigger as well? Laws of percentages and what not can go along way. Has anyone displayed a percentage of rushed/inaccurate studies between countries to see if the lines normalize?
i saw such a chart a few days ago, specifically for withdrawn papers -- forgive me if i can't dig it up again but china made up something like 50% of the total number
Population of researchers != Population it's more than 4x as large in terms of population but only has ~25% more researchers while having around 50x the retractions.
> Isn't the population of China much bigger as well?
Yes, but official government stats have also been overstating the population a bit. I think it mostly affects the younger generation at present though.
lol I don’t know where you got this impression but during the one-child policy phase it’s widely known that people would underreport their kids to avoid fines. Why would the population be overstated?
> lol I don’t know where you got this impression but during the one-child policy phase it’s widely known that people would underreport their kids to avoid fines.
The news mostly. But also this guy[1], who I guess is using the leaked data. But even the official data shows a huge drop in the 0-4 bucket.
> Why would the population be overstated?
As I understand it[2], the local governments are reliant on two sources for income: land sales and money from the central government. Both are influenced by demographic change, so there's incentives to adjust the numbers upwards to keep revenue coming in.
If those certain countries have a very big population I'd say is more of a quantitative issue. If china had 10 scientists they couldn't pump as many papers, fake or good or not as if they're 1million scientists
>> What personal benefit does this gain someone to publish it so quickly? Is it just social media attention?
> There are no prizes for being second in science.
The reply (second quote above) fits in context, but there is more to it.
1. Publishing early at the expense of quality has a way of catching up to one's reputation. (Hopefully.)
2. History has many examples of scientists who were "too early" or not "in the right place at the right time" to get recognition.
3. A result may get little attention in one field but a lot in another. One example that comes to mind are string-matching algorithms. Sometimes they seem a dime-a-dozen in CS. But the "right" ones have transformed DNA sequencing.
