|
|
|
| The Dilemmas and the Irrational Risks of Measuring Scientific Research Integrity: A Theoretical Reflection on the Technical Approaches to the External Norms of Scientific Research Integrity |
| Liu Shengli1,2,Pan Yuntao2 |
| (1. Library, Archives and Information Center, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China;2. Scientometrics & Evaluation Research Center, Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, Beijing 100038, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The social demand and institutional supply of scientific research integrity are undergoing an evolution and ethical turn from "internal norms" to "external norms". A series of laws, regulations and evaluation standards formulated or recognized by the government and implemented relying on public authority have been introduced into the scientific research behavior norm system to curb scientific fraud and improve knowledge productivity. For instance, peer-reviewed academic works are generally recognized as the academic currency, serving as a credit medium for the equivalent exchange between the scientific research community and the external society;as artificial intelligence and various algorithms are employed to directly detect and measure "paper plagiarism", "data fraud", "idea plagiarism" and even "paper reproducibility" technology, standards and government norms have come into being. Correspondingly, the technical supply and institutional rationality of scientific research integrity measurement and evaluation have aroused wide concern. #br#Therefore the root causes of difficulties and irrational risks of the institutionalized practice of scientific research integritymetric evaluation, the typical technical approach of external norms are specifically examined and rationally reflected from the multi-disciplinary theoretical perspective. Objectively, the institutional paradigm of internal norms of scientific research integrity relies on the "science-social contract" and "scientific institutional norms" to ensure the integrity and efficiency, and its collapse means that the active construction of a new institutional paradigm around external norms of scientific research integrity by the government is inevitable and beyond the practical scope of empirical judgment. The investigation of academic reflection shows that the measurement and evaluation of scientific research integrity face multiple difficulties, such as how to achieve preset goals, unify evaluation standards,stipulate rigid scales and control human bias;the practice of measurement and evaluation of scientific research integrity involves not only the formation of systems, but also the selection and application of technical methods, and it has the inertia of path dependence and system locking; the benefits of scientific research integrity management relying on public power are not absolute, and they are very likely to produce negative benefits. Besides, the following can be clarified with particular values: (1) the ethical nature of scientific research integrity and the practical characteristics of social relationship evaluation; (2) the natural norm value scale of the field of scientific research and the original functional attributes of scientific research works;(3) the institutionalized logic of measuring and evaluating scientific research integrity and institutional locking risks of relying on public authority.#br#These reflections suggest that a serious crisis of scientific research integrity and the deterioration of scientific research ecology are actually accompanied by path dependence, system locking, interest barriers and sunk costs; relying solely on the definition of "misconduct" by public power to measure and evaluate scientific research integrity, especially excessive reliance on the control of literature publication, not only breaks the self-organization management logic of creditworthiness and blurs the value system hierarchy that scientific research integrity should have, but also makes judicial authority excessively intrude into the field of moral self-discipline, and increases the social transaction cost of the scientific "recognition-reward" system. Accordingly,in order to optimize technical approaches and their relevant institutional supply, it is essential to focus on the core value goals as protecting the natural rhythm of scientific activities and the self-discipline mechanism of the scientific field, empowering scientific researchers to compete fairly and achieve self-realization, ensuring the local benefits as well as preventing "negative externalities" and "uncertain" ethical risks in science, to (1) break the path dependence and institutional lockdown, (2)clean up the redundant principal-agent relationship, (3)curb the alienation migration of scientific authority, (4)upgrade the scientific "recognition-reward" system, (5)clarify the academic support for decision-making and effectively improve the cognitive level of key target groups.#br#In general,the present research and its specific recommendations are of basic theoretical significance for avoiding blind institutional migration, building institutional advantages conducive to the self-reliance and self-improvement of the domestic science and technology system, and promoting the transformation of scientific research integrity from crisis response to long-term governance.#br#
|
|
Received: 18 November 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 大卫·古斯顿, 龚旭. 在政治与科学之间:确保科学研究的诚信和产出率 [M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2011.
[2] 刘胜利, 潘云涛, 赵筱媛. 科研诚信外部规范合目的性与合规律性的理论分析 [J]. 现代情报, 2020, 40(9):53-59.
[3] LI T. Five ways China must cultivate research integrity [J]. Nature, 2019, 575(7784): 589-591.
[4] TITUS S L, WELLS J A, RHOADES L J. Repairing research integrity [J]. Nature, 2008, 453(7198): 980-982.
[5] FOGARTY T J. Show me the money:academic research as currency [J]. Accounting Education, 2009, 18(1): 3-6.
[6] QUAN W, CHEN B, SHU F, et al. Publish or impoverish: an investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999-2016) [J]. Aslib Proceedings, 2017, 69(5): 486-502.
[7] VANI K, GUPTA D. Detection of idea plagiarism using syntax–semantic concept extractions with genetic algorithm [J]. Expert Systems with Applications, 2017, 73: 11-26.
[8] ROOSTAEE M, SADREDDINI M H, FAKHRAHMAD S M. An effective approach to candidate retrieval for cross-language plagiarism detection:a fusion of conceptual and keyword-based schemes [J]. Information Processing & Management, 2020, 57(2): 102150.
[9] AHUJA L, GUPTA V, KUMAR R. A new hybrid technique for detection of plagiarism from text documents [J]. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 2020, 45(12): 9939-9952.
[10] NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES E, MEDICINE. Reproducibility and replicability in science [M]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2019.
[11] RESNIK D B, NEAL T, RAYMOND A, et al. Research misconduct definitions adopted by U.S. research institutions [J]. Accountability in Research, 2015, 22(1): 14-21.
[12] MACILWAIN C. Scientific misconduct: more cops, more robbers[J]. Cell, 2012, 149(7): 1417-1419.
[13] BENJAMINI Y. Selective inference: the silent killer of replicability [J]. Harvard Data Science Review, 2020, 4(2):1-31.
[14] ZUCKERMAN H. Is "the time ripe" for quantitative research on misconduct in science [J]. Quantitative Science Studies, 2020,1(3): 945-958.
[15] NICHOLS J D, OLI M K, KENDALL W L, et al. Opinion:a better approach for dealing with reproducibility and replicability in science [J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118(7):e2100769118.
[16] LEWANDOWSKY S, BISHOP D. Research integrity:don't let transparency damage science [J]. Nature, 2016, 529(7587): 459-461.
[17] FANELLI D. Is science really facing a reproducibility crisis, and do we need it to[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2018, 115(11): 2628-2631.
[18] MARTIN B R. Whither research integrity?plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment [Z]. Elsevier，2013: 1005-14.
[19] 廖苗. 科学的社会契约与后常规科学 [J]. 自然辩证法研究, 2014, 30(10): 54-59.
[20] 唐壮, 聂培琴. 建立并完善道德自律和法律规制互动的科研诚信体系 [J]. 科研管理, 2008,29(S1): 98-100,90.
[21] 道格拉斯·C.诺思. 制度、制度变迁与经济绩效 [M]. 杭行,译.上海: 格致出版社, 2014.
[22] 徐国栋. 诚实信用原则二题 [J]. 法学研究, 2002, 24(4):74-88.
[23] 徐国栋. 英语世界中的诚信原则 [J]. 环球法律评论, 2004, 26(3): 366-375.
[24] SHANNON C E. A mathematical theory of communication [J]. The Bell System Technical Journal, 1948, 27(3): 379-423.
[25] 刘胜利, 潘云涛, 赵筱媛. 科研数据造假判定实用情报策略与技术的宏观考量 [J]. 现代情报, 2017, 37(12):3-9.
[26] 徐国栋. 客观诚信与主观诚信的对立统一问题——以罗马法为中心 [J]. 中国社会科学, 2001,22(6): 97-113,206.
[27] 迈克尔·马尔凯. 科学社会学理论与方法 [M]. 林聚任,等，译.北京: 商务印书馆, 2006.
[28] FRANCISL.MACRINA. 科研诚信:负责任的科研行为教程与案例 [M].北京：高等教育出版社, 2011.
[29] 波普尔. 科学发现的逻辑 [M]. 查汝强, 邱仁宗, 万木春，译.杭州: 中国美术学院出版社, 2008.
[30] 李真真, 黄小茹. 中国科研诚信面临的突出问题及解决路径 [J]. 科学与社会, 2017, 7(3):107-120.
[31] 桑本谦. 私人之间的监控与惩罚:一个经济学的进路 [M].济南：山东人民出版社, 2005.
[32] 马建平. 一稿多投正当性的法理分析及其权利规制 [J]. 现代出版, 2012,19(3): 18-21.
[33] NOSEK B A, ALTER G, BANKS G C, et al. Promoting an open research culture [J]. Science, 2015, 348(6242): 1422-1425.
[34] MAYO-WILSON E, GRANT S, SUPPLEE L, et al. Evaluating implementation of the transparency and openness promotion guidelines:the TRUST process for rating journal policies, procedures, and practices [J]. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2021, 6(1): 1-11.
|
|
|
|
