IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v10y2023i1d10.1057_s41599-023-02208-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical analysis of research integrity construction in 466 Chinese universities with medical programs

Author

Listed:
  • Fei Wang

    (School of Marxism)

  • Chaowen Zhu

    (School of Marxism)

Abstract

The medical field is prone to research misconduct, with serious cases exposed in China in recent years. In compliance with the guidelines from the Ministry of Education requiring higher education institutions to establish dedicated websites for research integrity, this study conducted online statistics on 466 universities to investigate the status of research integrity in Chinese universities with medical programs. Analysis of the data collected from official websites revealed progress in research integrity construction, but numerous issues persist, including scattered information, infrequent publication of warning cases or advanced deeds, lack of dedicated research integrity personnel, and limited disclosure of contact, whistleblowing channels and annual reports. Therefore, this paper proposes four improvement recommendations and provides incentive measures to ensure their implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Fei Wang & Chaowen Zhu, 2023. "Statistical analysis of research integrity construction in 466 Chinese universities with medical programs," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02208-6
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-023-02208-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-023-02208-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-023-02208-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniele Fanelli, 2013. "Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting," Nature, Nature, vol. 494(7436), pages 149-149, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Klaas Sijtsma, 2016. "Playing with Data—Or How to Discourage Questionable Research Practices and Stimulate Researchers to Do Things Right," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "Research Misconduct—Definitions, Manifestations and Extent," Publications, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-12, October.
    3. Tošić, Aleksandar & Vičič, Jernej, 2021. "Use of Benford's law on academic publishing networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    4. Daniele Fanelli & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2013. "Bibliometric Evidence for a Hierarchy of the Sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-11, June.
    5. Leandro Fórnias Machado de Rezende & Juan Pablo Rey-López & Thiago Hérick de Sá & Nicholas Chartres & Alice Fabbri & Lauren Powell & Emmanuel Stamatakis & Lisa Bero, 2018. "Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Weiss, Matthias & Nair, Lakshmi B. & Hoorani, Bareerah H. & Gibbert, Michael & Hoegl, Martin, 2023. "Transparency of reporting practices in quantitative field studies: The transparency sweet spot for article citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    7. Gall, Thomas & Maniadis, Zacharias, 2019. "Evaluating solutions to the problem of false positives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 506-515.
    8. Michał Krawczyk, 2015. "The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    9. Zhiwen Hu & Yiping Cui & Jian Zhang & Jacqueline Eviston-Putsch, 2020. "Shalosh B. Ekhad: a computer credit for mathematicians," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 71-97, January.
    10. Klaas Sijtsma & Coosje Veldkamp & Jelte Wicherts, 2016. "Improving the Conduct and Reporting of Statistical Analysis in Psychology," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 33-38, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:10:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-023-02208-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.