Have You Noticed Things That Are Gray In The Scientific Community?

Have you ever considered things that aregray are gray in the scientific community? Some scholars believe that there is a "gray area" in the determination of scientific misconduct. To acertain extent, this reflects the confusion of the academic community in thepractice of scientific misconduct management - there is a complex and sometimesdifficult space for subjective judgment between academic norms and academicmisconduct.

In recent years, some science andtechnology authorities and research institutions have frequently used"non-subjective falsification," "image misuse,""irregularity," and "defective" in their announcements ofmajor scientific misconduct cases. The use of qualitative terms such as"defective" has been criticized by the public and has made themajority of researchers snicker. We are concerned about things that are gray inthe scientific community. This is the objective expression of the above"gray area" "complex and difficult". Scientists explore thingsthat are gray.

The author believes that the elements ofacademic misconduct can be analyzed from four dimensions, and throughappropriate qualitative weighting, we can assist in understanding the "grayarea" and judging the nature of the problem, and provide a basis forappropriate treatment. These four dimensions are subjective intentionality,deviation from the norm, degree of infringement and social harm.

I. Intentionality of subjectivity. Scientificmisconduct is a serious deviation from the accepted norms of the scientificcommunity. Subjective intentionality is the basic element to determinescientific misconduct. For malicious plagiarism, fabrication and manipulationof data or other violations of the administrative agencies of scientificresearch ordered to prohibit behavior, can be defined as malicious intent. Forexample, the commissioner of the "paper factory" is malicious intent.In addition, if a researcher with a record of scientific misconduct violatesthe relevant norms again or repeatedly, it can also be defined as maliciousintent, if appropriate. For a small amount of irregularities such as improperlyordered signatures, irregular citations, cosmetic pictures, and repeated use ofpictures, if they do not affect the basic conclusion of the paper and are firstviolations, they can be defined as subjective intent with a low degree ofmalice; those who do not participate in the actual scientific research work,but are unknowingly signed by another person's paper and later include therelevant paper in their own work performance can be regarded as a minor degreeof malice. Subjective intent. Violations that cannot be determined withsubjective intent, such as negligent errors, cannot be judged as scientificresearch misconduct. Some experimental data verify things that are gray in thescientific community.

Second, the degree of normative deviation.Scientific misconduct is a serious deviation from the accepted norms of thescientific community. The expression "serious deviation" implies asubjective judgment of the "degree" of deviation from the norms,which is difficult to quantify and depends on the degree of aversion of theacademic community to the behavior. In practice, the members of the committeeauthorized to deal with the controversial ranking of science and technologyaward applicants, double submissions in English and Chinese, and the failure tocite landmark literature in citations are far less distasteful than themalicious manipulation of experimental data. By nature, intentionally omittingan individual data that may affect the gracefulness of the statistical curve orfabricating a large amount of data out of nothing are both data manipulation,but the former deviates from the norm to a relatively lesser extent.

Third, the degree of infringement.Scientific research misconduct generally generates corresponding harms. One ofthe common hazards is the infringement of the rights of others. Plagiarism andplagiarism of scientific research results is a typical infringement of therights of others, the essence of which is to steal the fruits of other people'slabor as their own. If such infringement involves huge commercial interests, itmay also constitute a criminal offense. In practice, improper ranking of thesissignatures and improper ranking of science and technology awards are the mostcommon matters reported for prosecution. Plagiarism is also the mostobjectionable behavior in academia. In the history of science, there have beennumerous disputes over the "first publication" of academicdiscoveries, reflecting the complex nature of academic discoveries and theimportance of protecting the honor and interests of scientists. In the case ofscholars who publish their previous work with a new employer due to a change ofemployer, the intellectual property rights of the original affiliated unit areinfringed.

Fourth, the degree of social harm.Scientific misconduct can also cause great harm to groups, society and thepublic. Academic falsification may lead to the dissemination of falseknowledge, causing misperceptions and losses among peers. In recent years, inthe field of life sciences, there have been a number of "major"scientific research results generated by falsification has led to a largenumber of academic community duplication of experiments, and even created afalse prosperity of the subject area, which is very harmful; some academicfalsification, falsely claiming to fill the national "gap "The"paper factory" incident has seriously damaged the internationalcredibility of Chinese scientists and the credibility of science. In addition,violations of research ethics are also academic misconduct, causing real orpotential great harm to society.

The "Rules for Investigation andHandling of Scientific Research Integrity Cases (for TrialImplementation)" issued by the Ministry of Science and Technology andothers provide for different degrees of scientific misconduct. The less severetreatment measures are "scientific research integrity admonishmenttalk" and "public notification and criticism", which can beregarded as the light treatment of scientific research misconduct;"suspension of financial support" If the above"suspension", "cancellation" and "restriction"are the heavier treatments of academic disciplinary actions; if the above"suspension", "cancellation" and "restriction"are the more serious treatments of scientific misconduct, the"suspension", "cancellation" and "restriction"are the more serious treatments. If the above "suspension","cancellation" and "restriction" are for a longer period oftime or permanent, it can be understood as the "top" heavy treatment.