Article ID: CBB909005401

How Metrics-Based Academic Evaluation Could Systematically Induce Academic Misconduct: A Case Study (June 2018)

unapi

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.

...More
Included in

Article Hee-Je Bak (June 2018) Research Misconduct in East Asia’s Research Environments: Introduction. East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (pp. 117-122). unapi

Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB909005401/

Similar Citations

Article Larry Au; Renan Gonçalves Leonel da Silva; (January 2021)
Globalizing the Scientific Bandwagon: Trajectories of Precision Medicine in China and Brazil (/isis/citation/CBB422379363/)

Article Line Edslev Andersen; K Brad Wray; (December 2019)
Detecting errors that result in retractions (/isis/citation/CBB480893444/)

Article Emmanuel Didier; Catherine Guaspare-Cartron; (February 2018)
Research Note: The new watchdogs’ vision of science: A roundtable with Ivan Oransky (Retraction Watch) and Brandon Stell (PubPeer) (/isis/citation/CBB935591060/)

Article Mario Biagioli; (June 2022)
Ghosts, brands, and influencers: Emergent trends in scientific authorship (/isis/citation/CBB701812762/)

Article Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner; Kean Birch; Maria Amuchastegui; (2022)
Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals (/isis/citation/CBB351753437/)

Article Buhm Soon Park; (2020)
Making matters of fraud: Sociomaterial technology in the case of Hwang and Schatten (/isis/citation/CBB209912238/)

Article Edward J. Hackett; (July 2021)
The Ambivalence of Peer Review: Thank You ST&HV Reviewers 2019-2020 (/isis/citation/CBB912930423/)

Article Elina I. Mäkinen; (2019)
The Power of Peer Review on Transdisciplinary Discovery (/isis/citation/CBB034066102/)

Article Mikko Lagerspetz; (March 2021)
“The Grievance Studies Affair” Project: Reconstructing and Assessing the Experimental Design (/isis/citation/CBB538391440/)

Article Marie-Andrée Jacob; (February 2019)
Under repair: A publication ethics and research record in the making (/isis/citation/CBB050139593/)

Article Felicitas Hesselmann; Martin Reinhart; (June 2021)
Cycles of invisibility: The limits of transparency in dealing with scientific misconduct (/isis/citation/CBB357048923/)

Article Lambros Roumbanis; (2022)
Disagreement and Agonistic Chance in Peer Review (/isis/citation/CBB437513195/)

Article Duckhee Jang; Doh Soogwan; Gil-Mo Kang; Dong-Seong Han; (January 2017)
Impact of Alumni Connections on Peer Review Ratings and Selection Success Rate in National Research (/isis/citation/CBB477207269/)

Article Kyle Siler; David Strang; (January 2017)
Peer Review and Scholarly Originality: Let 1,000 Flowers Bloom, but Don’t Step on Any (/isis/citation/CBB358441182/)

Article Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner; Sarah de Rijcke; (December 2019)
Filling in the gaps: The interpretation of curricula vitae in peer review (/isis/citation/CBB339339084/)

Book Kunze, Rui; Marc André Matten; (2021)
Knowledge production in Mao-era China: learning from the masses (/isis/citation/CBB437073889/)

Book Susanne Brucksch; Sasaki, Kaori; (2021)
Humans and devices in medical contexts: case studies from Japan (/isis/citation/CBB737777497/)

Article Sara M. Grimes; (January 2015)
Configuring the Child Player (/isis/citation/CBB047050197/)

Authors & Contributors
Roumbanis, Lambros
Kaltenbrunner, Wolfgang
Jacob, Marie-Andrée
Susanne Brucksch
Gil-Mo Kang
Doh Soogwan
Concepts
Technoscience; science and technology studies
Peer review
Scientific misconduct; fraud in science
Scholarly publishing
Case studies
Research
Time Periods
21st century
20th century
Places
China
United States
South Korea
Sweden
Japan
Korea
Institutions
Universities and colleges--Alumni and alumnae
Committee on Publication Ethics
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment