Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity from a Hong Kong Perspective

Abstract

In their 2010 article 'Research Integrity in China: Problems and Prospects', Zeng and Resnik challenge others to engage in empirical research on research integrity in China. Here we respond to that call in three ways: first, we provide updates to their analysis of regulations and allegations of scientific misconduct; second, we report on two surveys conducted in Hong Kong that provide empirical backing to describe ways in which problems and prospects that Zeng and Resnik identify are being explored; and third, we continue the discussion started by Zeng and Resnik, pointing to ways in which China's high-profile participation in international academic research presents concerns about research integrity. According to our research, based upon searches of both English and Chinese language literature and policies, and two surveys conducted in Hong Kong, academic faculty and research post-graduate students in Hong Kong are aware of and have a positive attitude towards responsible conduct of research. Although Hong Kong is but one small part of China, we present this research as a response to concerns Zeng and Resnik introduce and as a call for a continued conversation.

Seeking Approval: International Higher Education Students’ Experiences of Applying for Human Research Ethics Clearance in Australia

“…Macfarlane and Saitoh (2008, p. 185), for example, noted that in Japan, research ethics was a "relatively new concept" for many of their 13 interviewees, all of whom were academic staff members. Jordan and Gray (2013) found that only half the academics that they approached in disciplines that conducted human research at the University of Hong Kong were even "somewhat familiar" with key research ethics principles (p. 132). In China and Indonesia, the two countries most represented by students in our own study, there are likely to be no human research ethics committee procedures for social research undertaken by university students.…”

The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles

“…universities, research institutions, or national agencies like the ORI, handle allegations of scientific misconduct and investigate cases, thereby effecting retractions and influencing the visibility of scientific misconduct. A number of publications, more or less based on anecdotal evidence, refer to country-specific organizational processes for dealing with misconduct: the USA ( Price, 2013 ; Steneck, 1994 , 1999 ); Japan ( Normile, 2007 ; Slingsby et al, 2006 ); Canada ( Lytton, 1996 ); Brazil ( Lins and Carvalho, 2014 ); South Africa ( Rossouw et al, 2014 ); China ( Jordan and Gray, 2013 ; Ren, 2012 ; Zeng and Resnik, 2010 ); Nigeria ( Adeleye and Adebamowo, 2012 ); Spain ( Puigdomènech, 2014 ); the UK ( Chantler and Chantler, 1998 ; Khajuria and Agha, 2014 ); Korea ( Kim and Park, 2013 ); Scandinavia ( Nylenna et al, 1999 ); Germany ( Deutsch, 2006 ; DFG, 2005 ; Schiffers, 2012 ; von Bargen, 2013 ).…”

Do biomedical researchers differ in their perceptions of plagiarism across Europe? Findings from an online survey among leading universities

“…These limited comparative empirical studies have indicated that the northern (and western) European countries are more advanced in their guidelines and training on research integrity. Though the impact on attitudes and practices remain in doubt [56] , education and training of research integrity are believed to improve an individual’s knowledge of research integrity and misconduct [57 , 58] . Influences of guidelines also depend on training and education of research integrity.…”