Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China
2
Zitationen
2
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
China’s retraction crisis has raised concerns about research integrity and accountability within its scientific community and beyond. To address this issue, we proposed in an earlier publication that Chinese research funders incorporate retraction records into the evaluation of research funding applications by establishing a retraction-based review system. This review system would debar researchers with retraction records from applying for funding for a specified period. However, our earlier proposal lacked practical guidance on how to operationalize such a review system. In this article, we expand on our proposal by fleshing out the proposed ten debarment determinants and offering a framework for quantifying the duration of funding ineligibility. Additionally, we outline the critical steps for implementing the retraction-based review system, address the major challenges to its effective and sustainable adoption, and propose viable solutions to these challenges. Finally, we discuss the benefits of implementing the review system, emphasizing its potential to strengthen research integrity and foster a culture of accountability in the Chinese academic community.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications
2022 · 2.691 Zit.
Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach
1998 · 2.492 Zit.
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
2012 · 2.307 Zit.
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data
2009 · 1.921 Zit.
Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT
2023 · 1.778 Zit.