Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Yunru Chen, Weiming Liu, Zimeng Lai, Guangwei Hu
{"title":"展示科研成果，维护科研诚信：中国高校如何发展？","authors":"Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Yunru Chen, Weiming Liu, Zimeng Lai, Guangwei Hu","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2654563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the importance of showcasing research achievements and safeguarding research integrity, our understanding of how Chinese universities navigate these potentially competing priorities remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In response, this study investigated 579 Chinese universities on the 2024 Stanford lists of the world's top 2% scientists (WTSs) and operationalized their fulfillment of the dual priorities in terms of institutional visibility (i.e. public institutional responses to the release of the 2024 Stanford lists of WTSs and to the government requirements for safeguarding research integrity) and institutional responsiveness (i.e. promptness in publishing news reports featuring WTSs and releasing annual research integrity reports). In this connection, three types of publicly accessible official documents were analyzed: 1) news reports featuring WTSs, 2) academic integrity webpages, and 3) annual research integrity reports disclosing integrity investigations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among these universities, 28.5% published news reports featuring WTSs, 52.8% maintained academic integrity webpages, and 16.8% released annual research integrity reports. Furthermore, significant variations were found across four contextual factors: university prestige (elite universities vs. non-elite universities), retraction status (universities hosting retraction-afflicted WTSs vs. universities hosting retraction-free WTSs), the number of WTSs, and the prevalence of retraction-afflicted WTSs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2654563"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Showcasing research achievements and safeguarding research integrity: How do Chinese universities fare?\",\"authors\":\"Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Yunru Chen, Weiming Liu, Zimeng Lai, Guangwei Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2026.2654563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the importance of showcasing research achievements and safeguarding research integrity, our understanding of how Chinese universities navigate these potentially competing priorities remains limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In response, this study investigated 579 Chinese universities on the 2024 Stanford lists of the world's top 2% scientists (WTSs) and operationalized their fulfillment of the dual priorities in terms of institutional visibility (i.e. public institutional responses to the release of the 2024 Stanford lists of WTSs and to the government requirements for safeguarding research integrity) and institutional responsiveness (i.e. promptness in publishing news reports featuring WTSs and releasing annual research integrity reports). In this connection, three types of publicly accessible official documents were analyzed: 1) news reports featuring WTSs, 2) academic integrity webpages, and 3) annual research integrity reports disclosing integrity investigations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among these universities, 28.5% published news reports featuring WTSs, 52.8% maintained academic integrity webpages, and 16.8% released annual research integrity reports. Furthermore, significant variations were found across four contextual factors: university prestige (elite universities vs. non-elite universities), retraction status (universities hosting retraction-afflicted WTSs vs. universities hosting retraction-free WTSs), the number of WTSs, and the prevalence of retraction-afflicted WTSs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2654563\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2654563\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/4/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2654563","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Showcasing research achievements and safeguarding research integrity: How do Chinese universities fare?
Background: Despite the importance of showcasing research achievements and safeguarding research integrity, our understanding of how Chinese universities navigate these potentially competing priorities remains limited.
Methods: In response, this study investigated 579 Chinese universities on the 2024 Stanford lists of the world's top 2% scientists (WTSs) and operationalized their fulfillment of the dual priorities in terms of institutional visibility (i.e. public institutional responses to the release of the 2024 Stanford lists of WTSs and to the government requirements for safeguarding research integrity) and institutional responsiveness (i.e. promptness in publishing news reports featuring WTSs and releasing annual research integrity reports). In this connection, three types of publicly accessible official documents were analyzed: 1) news reports featuring WTSs, 2) academic integrity webpages, and 3) annual research integrity reports disclosing integrity investigations.
Results: Among these universities, 28.5% published news reports featuring WTSs, 52.8% maintained academic integrity webpages, and 16.8% released annual research integrity reports. Furthermore, significant variations were found across four contextual factors: university prestige (elite universities vs. non-elite universities), retraction status (universities hosting retraction-afflicted WTSs vs. universities hosting retraction-free WTSs), the number of WTSs, and the prevalence of retraction-afflicted WTSs.
期刊介绍：
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results.
The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science.
All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
