近日，华中科技大学外国语学院雷蕾教授就其本月发表于科学与工程伦理学（Science and Engineering Ethics）分析中国撤稿20年的论文(Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers(1997-2016))，接受撤稿观察(RetractionWatch)的采访。

 

After reviewing nearly 20 years of retractions from researchers based in China, researchers came up with some somewhat unsurprising (yet still disheartening) findings: The number of retractions has increased (from zero in 1997 to more than 150 in 2016), and approximately 75% were due to some kind of misconduct. (You can read more details in the paper , published this month in Science and Engineering Ethics.) We spoke with first author Lei Lei , based in the School of Foreign Languages at Huazhong University of Science and Technology, about what he thinks can be done to improve research integrity in his country.

 

回顾近二十年来中国的研究人员的撤退，研究人员得出了一些令人不高兴的（甚至令人沮丧的）发现：撤稿次数有所增加（从1997年的零上升到2016年的150个）。

其中，约75％源于某种学术不端行为。他认为可以做的事情是提高国家的研究诚信。

 

RW (Retraction Watch): With “Lack of Improvement” right in the title (“Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers (1997-2016) ”), you sound disappointed with your findings.  What findings did you expect — or at least hope — to find, and what are your reactions to the results you did uncover?

 

RW：标题中的“缺乏改进”（Lack of Improvement in Scientific Integrity: An Analysis of  WoS Retractions by Chinese Researchers(1997-2016)），你对调查结果感到失望。你期望发现什么或至少希望，你对你发现的结果有什么反应？

 

LL (Lei Lei): Before we began to work on the project, we had occasionally heard of news reports on the retraction of articles by Chinese researchers. It seemed that the issue occurred more often than before.  Since my team has been working on several projects with bibliometric methods, I thought we could investigate this issue with the methods. Thus, the results we found from the study provided scientific evidence to our hypothesis, though I was disappointed, as you mentioned, with the findings.

 

LL：在我们开始工作之前，我们偶尔听到有关中国研究人员撤稿的新闻报道。似乎这个问题比以前更频繁。由于我的团队已经通过文献计量学方法开展了几个项目，我想我们可以用这些方法来调查这个问题。研究中结果为我们的假设提供了科学证据，尽管我对你提到的研究结果感到失望。

 

RW: You painted a rather grim picture of how China has “suffered from the poor ethics of its researchers.” Do you think that China is unique in these problems — i.e. is there some particular feature in the publishing habits of Chinese researchers, more than any other country, that in continuing to encourage this behavior? 

 

RW：你描述了一个相当严峻的画面，说明中国如何“受到研究人员不良道德的伤害”，你认为中国在这些问题上是独一无二的，也就是中国研究人员的出版习惯有一些特别的特点，多于任何其他国家。是继续鼓励这种行为吗？

 

LL: No, it is not an issue that only happens in China. In fact, many studies have reported retractions from traditional scientific powerhouses such as United States and Germany  to developing countries such as Iran and India.

I do not think there exists any particular feature in the publishing habits of Chinese researchers that should be responsible for the issue.

The only thing I would like to emphasise is the importance of “integrity education” in China. For example, some researchers may not be very clear of the borderline between plagiarism and proper citation. Another example is that some may not know it is not acceptable to publish their research more than once. That is why we suggest “integrity education.”

Of course, some points may be responsible for the issue.

 

LL：不，这不是只在中国发生的问题。事实上，从美国和德国等传统科学强国到发展中国家如伊朗和印度等的撤稿报道也很多。

我认为中国研究人员的出版习惯中不应该存在任何特殊的特征，应该对这个问题负责。

我唯一要强调的是中国“诚信教育”的重要性。例如，一些研究人员可能不会很清楚剽窃与适当引用之间的界线。另一个例子，有些人可能不知道不止一次发表他们的研究是不可接受的。这就是为什么我们建议“诚信教育”。

当然，有些问题造成这个问题的原因。

 

RW: Why do you think the rate of misconduct has increased?

 

RW：你为什么认为学术不端行为有所增加？

 

LL: As we described in the article, several points may be responsible for the issue in China. First, Chinese researchers are facing much of the ‘‘publish or perish’’ pressure; second, publication of articles are closely related to awards, bonuses, and promotion; third , the costs of scientific integrity are relatively low.

 

LL：正如我们在文章中所描述的那样，中国的问题可能有几点可能。首先，中国研究人员正面临着“出版或灭亡”的压力;

第二，文章出版与奖励，奖金和晋升密切相关;

第三，科学诚信的成本相对较低。

 

RW: The repeat offenders you identified — authors who commit misconduct more than once — were responsible for a little over than 1/3 the retractions you identified, and that they were generally responsible for fraud, plagiarism and fake peer review .  If their retractions were removed from the overall numbers, would the proportion have changed significantly?  In other words, is there some category of misconduct that these repeat offenders tended to use most often?

 

RW：你所说的惯犯——不止一次学术不端，略大于1/3的撤稿的人，他们通常是欺骗、剽窃和假同行评审。如果他们的撤稿从总数中删除，那么比例会有显着的变化吗？换句话说，这些惯犯往往最常使用哪些类型的不当行为？

 

LL: Of the 24 repeat offenders, 14 committed fraud, five both fraud and plagiarism, three plagiarism, and two faked peer review.

 

LL：在24名惯犯中，14名涉嫌欺诈，5人涉嫌欺诈和剽窃，3人剽窃，2人假同行评审。

 

RW: As part of your recommendations, you suggest integrity education for undergraduate and post-graduate students; many institutions around the world offer training in research integrity.  Has there been no such training in China before now? How do you suggest it be brought into, or expanded throughout, the university curriculum?  

 

RW：作为你的建议的一部分，你建议本科和研究生的诚信教育；世界各地的许多机构提供研究诚信培训。中国以前没有这样的培训吗？你如何建议将其纳入或扩展到大学课程？

 

LL: There is integrity education in China. In fact, I have a regular talk of approximately an hour for [first-year] undergraduates and postgraduates at my School each year. But I do not think the one-hour talk is enough. Yes, it is a very good idea if such education is integrated into the university curriculum. That is, the students should have a compulsory course of “scientific integrity” at both under- and post-graduate levels.

 

LL：中国有诚信教育。事实上，我每年都会给在本校就读的一年级本科生和研究生一个小时的诚信教育。但我不认为一小时的谈话就够了。是的，如果这样的教育被纳入大学课程，这是一个很好的主意。也就是说，学生应该在本科生阶段和研究生阶段都要有一个“科学诚信”的必修课。

 

RW: Your suggestions for ways to improve scientific integrity were directed at the policy makers in China, and to journals.  Are there others who you feel have a stake in this? What advice do you have for them, after seeing your results?  

 

RW：你对中国的决策者和期刊提高科学诚信的建议。有没有其他人对此感兴趣？看到你的结果后，他们有什么建议？

 

LL: Besides the policy makers and the journal administrators, the others that should be responsible for the issue are, of course, the researchers. I believe all researchers (not only those in China) should follow the two steps. First, be clear of what we can do and what we cannot do (the “integrity education” works). Second, do only what we can do (obey the rules).

 

LL：除了政策制定者和期刊管理员外，其他应该负责的问题当然是研究人员。我相信所有研究人员（不仅在中国）都应该遵循两个步骤。首先，要明白我们能做什么，不能做什么（“诚信教育”）。其次，只做我们能做的事（服从规则）。