How Metrics-Based Academic Evaluation Could Systematically Induce Academic Misconduct: A Case Study

Abstract

This article analyzes a case of postproduction misconduct, that is, the BioMed Central (BMC) retraction incident, which is the beginning of a series of massive retraction incidents that China has encountered in recent years. Our analysis echoes the pioneering research of STS scholar Mario Biagioli, who argues that our academic culture is shifting from “publish or perish” to “impact or perish.” Getting a good score on the metrics of academic evaluation becomes the goal of some scholars, leading to the emergency of postproduction misconduct. As revealed in the BMC retraction incident, commercial agencies that claimed to be able to facilitate academic publishing manipulated the peer-review process of academic papers by fabricating their peer reviews to help some clinicians meet the requirements of the title assessment system. This article advances Biagioli’s argument by expounding on the following two characteristics of the BMC retraction incident: first, peer reviews were fabricated by agencies instead of the authors themselves; second, the incident was induced systematically by the title assessment system, instead of particularly by individual factors of the authors. Through analyzing this case, we obtain important insight into postproduction misconduct, which is beneficial to more thoroughly understanding and then mitigating this new type of academic misconduct.

Abstract

本文分析了一个后生产性学术不端的案例,即 BioMed Central (BMC) 撤稿事件,该事件也是近年来中国遭遇的一系列大规模撤稿事件的开端。 本文的分析响应了 STS 学者 Mario Biagioli 的开创性研究。 Biagioli 认为,我们的学术文化正在从 “发表,或者毁灭” (publish or perish) 向“有影响,或者毁灭” (impact or perish) 转变,在学术评价指标上获得一个好的得分成为一些学者的目标,从而导致了后生产性学术不端的出现。在 BMC 撤稿事件中,一些声称能够帮助进行学术发表的商业性中介通过伪造评审意见操纵了学术论文的同行评审过程,以帮助一些临床医生达到职称评审系统的要求。 本文通过详细阐释 BMC 撤稿事件的以下两个特点推进了 Biagioli 的论述:首先,评审意见是由中介伪造的,而非作者自己;其次,该事件是由职称评审体系系统性地诱发的,而非由作者的个人因素个别地导致的。 通过对此案例的分析,本文获得了对后生产性学术不端的一些重要认识,有助于更为深刻地理解这种新型的学术不端现象并减少其发生。

• BMC retraction incident
• postproduction misconduct
• fake peer reviews
• title assessment system

• BMC 撤稿事件
• 后生产性学术不端
• 虚假评审意见
• 职称评审体系

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article was presented in the Fifth Cross-Straits STS Academic Exchange Meeting in National Yang-Ming University, October 2015. We are grateful for the productive discussions there, which helped us formulate our arguments. Our thanks also go to the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), which invited us to join the investigation team for several interviews and shared the reports based on all interviews with us. Two anonymous reviewers of East Asian Science, Technology and Society provided many valuable comments, which helped improve this article. The editors of the journal, Wen-Hua Kuo and Hee-je Bak, gave us many precious suggestions as well. In particular, Wen-Hua Kuo discussed this article with us several times, which helped a lot. Last but not least, we would like to thank Lili Dong, with whom we talked about this article and got helpful advice. Despite all the feedback we received from the researchers mentioned above, we take full responsibility for the views and arguments of this article.

Notes

1 These incidents were also widely reported and discussed by the Chinese media, two examples of the reports can be found at http://www.beijingreview.com.cn/keji/201511/t20151113_800042489.html and http://www.jiemian.com/article/1011039.html, accessed 24 May 2017.

2 The online version of this news report can be found at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/?utm_term=.294fd06d5494, accessed 24 May 2017.

3 This settlement suggestion was contained in the statement of this medicine school on the incident and was provided by the chancellor of the university in an e-mail discussion about the incident organized by the Morality and Rights Committee of Science and Technology Workers under CAST, which we will introduce later in the method section.

4 All forty-one articles were retracted on the grounds of fake peer reviews at first, but BMC corrected the retraction note on one article later.

5 Stated by a clinician in one of the interviews that we conducted, at Jinan Military General Hospital on 2 June 2015.

6 This happened in both the interviews we conducted and those we did not. We learned about the latter through conversations with other members of the investigation team.

7 We learned about this information through conversations with other members of the investigation team as well.

8 Stated by the same clinician as in footnote 5.

9 The specific requirements of various hospitals differ, but they all put a huge emphasis on publication.

10 Stated by an author in one of the interviews we conducted, at Ludong University on 4 June 2015.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Junhui Han

Junhui Han is a PhD candidate of sociology of science at the Institute of Science, Technology, and Society, Tsinghua University, Beijing. His professional interests include sociology of science and computational social science.

Zhengfeng Li

Zhengfeng Li is professor of sociology of science and deputy dean of the School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing. He also chairs the Specialized Committee of Sociology of Science in the Chinese Sociological Association. His professional interests include sociology of science, philosophy of science and technology, and policy of science and technology.