Research Fraud in China

From the New York Times:

Last December, a British journal that specializes in crystal formations announced that it was withdrawing more than 70 papers by Chinese authors whose research was of questionable originality or rigor. . . . “Even fake papers count because nobody actually reads them,” said Mr. Fang, who is more widely known by his pen name, Fang Zhouzi, and whose Web site, New Threads, has exposed more than 900 instances of fakery, some involving university presidents and nationally lionized researchers.

Recently a Tsinghua colleague asked me to fix the English in his paper. Most paragraphs required a few changes every sentence but here and there were whole paragraphs with no mistakes. Presumably he copied them from somewhere else. The material in them was boring — it was like copying from the phone book — so it was hard to care (he wasn’t taking credit for anyone else’s ideas) but I wonder if he realized how obvious it was. I don’t mean this is typical. I have looked at several other papers by Chinese authors and found no patches of perfect English.

The article begins with a false claim by a Chinese doctor — and of course these are truly damaging. In my experience, false claims by American doctors are common. An example is my surgeon recommending an operation that, she said, evidence showed would benefit me. There was no such evidence. One value of self-experimentation is that you can find out if a medicine works, rather than take your doctor’s word for it. I became impressed with self-experimentation when it showed me that an acne medicine (tetracycline, an antibiotic) my dermatologist had prescribed didn’t work. Not at all. He didn’t express any doubts when he prescribed it. Call it forensic DNA testing (e.g., The Innocence Project) for the rest of us.

Perhaps the Chinese people, faced with even more false claims than Americans, can benefit even more from self-experimentation.

Thanks to Tim Beneke.

9 thoughts on “Research Fraud in China

  1. Since people in the west are mostly fed lies, too, I doubt the Chinese can be faced with more false claims. It’s just that you are probably not yet aware of how bad it really is. Even though you are more aware than regular people.

    Here is just one resource to show how bad it is, don’t fall off your chair:
    https://www.wanttoknow.info/

    Don’t despair. It’s getting better already.

  2. I’m embarrased to say it, but in the Computer Science field, I’ve started skipping papers I find in online searches if all of the authors have Chinese names. It’s sad, but so many papers that come out of China seem to simply restate the obvious, or combine two techniques in an unoriginal manner, without any real purpose or benefit. It’s as if every undergraduate had to be published four times before they graduated.

  3. Shouldn’t we distinguish between false claims that are intentionally perpetrated and ones that are not? A doctor may pass on a meme or act on it, because that is what he was taught and he is too busy, too lazy or lacks the aptitude to research the issue in question. Of course, nowadays that meme would issue directly or indirectly from pharmaceutical companies or maybe received dogma from med school.

    Then there are people who knowingly perpetrate lies for personal gain. Perhaps you will argue that no matter the intention or reason, the consequences are the same. That may be true.

    In any case, it leaves us with the distressing realization that there is very little information, even from so-called scientific sources, that we can count on as true. We are truly on our own, in many respects.

  4. Nile, I started to write something like that, but that’s not right. Even if 90 percent of the web site is “wrong” (and I’m not saying that’s the case here), it doesn’t mean that we should conclude that it is entirely wrong. If you follow the link given for the BBC story about the US military using the Internet as a propaganda tool, then I think you will agree that that is something to be concerned with.

    Also, I must admit that until I read some of the posts up here, I put anybody who challenged Global Warming in the same boat as you (and for that matter, me) put 9/11 truthers. That is to say that I thought they were Right-Wing Nuts with the IQ and sophistication of Sarah Palin. Now I am very skeptical of the 9/11 stuff, but the truth is I haven’t really carried out any in-depth investigation of it. Have you? (Maybe you have)

  5. Does anyone have any information about what happens to these researchers once they’re caught further humiliating China’s already disreputable academic system? I mean, it seems the State is in the habit of severely punishing and even executing Party members whose actions vis-a-vis, say, tainted milk or toxic childrens’ toys. While clearly there is state impetus to up China’s academic output in foreign journals, what happens when it comes out that these guys are making China look bad? Anybody know?

  6. John, my impression is that little happens to them. I haven’t looked into it. After a Tsinghua professor was accused of plagiarizing his doctoral dissertation, so far Tsinghua has done nothing.

  7. Well, this year I have investigated plenty topics I had formerly believed to be absurd. And I found out that we are constantly lied to. I also found out that most people don’t think for themselves, they mostly use what people they believe to be trustworthy tell them and build that into their mind structure.

    If you take the 9/11 topic alone and watch pictures and original TV footage with an open mind, you can see for yourself that what the government said cannot be true. Well, OK, not everybody can.

    The stuff on wanttoknow.info is real, but it’s too overwhelming for most so they falsely conclude it to be wrong. The insanity is the reality and that’s tough!

    But don’t despair, as I said, it’s getting better already.

    Here’s a usable primer on the UFO deception:
    https://www.thedaybeforedisclosure.com

    Just part 3 of it is unsound.

    Be well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *