3 ms·

China publishes more science research with fabricated peer-review than everyone else put together https://qz.com/978037/china-publishes-more-science-research-w

China publishes more science research with fabricated peer-review than everyone else put together https://qz.com/978037/china-publishes-more-science-research-with-fabricated-peer-review-than-everyone-else-put-together https://qz.com/978037/china-publishes-more-science-research-... I respectfully submit that you may be providing an anecdotal experience. It’s so bad that China’s courts have called for the death penalty for scientific fraud. https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/23/china-death-penalty-research-fraud/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/23/china-death-penalty-rese... Goodness me.

danielheath 3y ago
“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.
- bloppe 3y ago
  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. [1]: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/China https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/China [2]: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/United%20States%20of%20America%20%28USA%29 https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/United%2...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
janalsncm 3y ago
Nice to see a government that takes science seriously. In the US if you fake data you can become president of Stanford (for a while).
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  It’s not taking science seriously when you have to threaten scientists with death. A healthy system wouldn’t need such threats.
- thucydides 3y ago
  > 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.
biofunsf 3y ago
> 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.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  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.
  - SZJX 3y ago
    This is quite a off-topic comment. Also, does the Biden family get showered with money left and right exactly because they’re hardworking? The “death penalty” under discussion is for faking drug results and causing deaths of patients, which sounds reasonable.
    - andrewshadura 3y ago
      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.
dontmobile 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis 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.
dcow 3y ago
> 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.

danielheath 3y ago

“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.

bloppe 3y ago
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. [1]: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/China https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/China [2]: https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/United%20States%20of%20America%20%28USA%29 https://www.nature.com/nature-index/country-outputs/United%2...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

janalsncm 3y ago

Nice to see a government that takes science seriously. In the US if you fake data you can become president of Stanford (for a while).

mensetmanusman 3y ago
It’s not taking science seriously when you have to threaten scientists with death. A healthy system wouldn’t need such threats.
thucydides 3y ago
> 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.

biofunsf 3y ago

> 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.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
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.
- SZJX 3y ago
  This is quite a off-topic comment. Also, does the Biden family get showered with money left and right exactly because they’re hardworking? The “death penalty” under discussion is for faking drug results and causing deaths of patients, which sounds reasonable.
  - andrewshadura 3y ago
    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.

dontmobile 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis 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.

dcow 3y ago

> 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.