Purpose: To gain insights into the levels of training and support in research integrity and publishing ethics, levels of experience in publishing in scholarly journals and use of third-party manuscript preparation/editing services (which can include paper mills), and also to assess levels of awareness regarding different types of publishing ethics misconduct, we surveyed members of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Journal Ranking WeChat channel.
Design/methodology/approach: The online survey collected voluntary anonymous responses from members of the CAS Journal Ranking WeChat channel, one of largest channels of Chinese researchers at all career stages within STM and social sciences. The respondents of the survey fell into one of the following categories: Undergraduate student, Master’s student, PhD candidate, Researcher, Research manager, Researcher with research management responsibilities, and Librarian. The survey included 14 main questions on the topics of access to research integrity and publishing ethics training, experience levels in publishing in scholarly journals (including using third-party services), authorship experiences and behaviours, levels of concern about different types of research integrity issues, and perceptions on who the respondents think are primarily responsible for upholding research integrity standards and training in publishing ethics. After applying inclusion criteria, 1,777 responses were included in the analysis.
Findings: Amongst the 1,777 respondents included in the study results, only 55.4% had any access to training in research integrity and publishing ethics, and an even smaller proportion to formal training. Even amongst cohorts with access to training (where respondents in the Researcher cohort have the highest access), answers to the questions on authorship and third-party services reveal many areas of confusion regarding authorship criteria and responsibilities in publishing ethics. In particular, the responses also show limited knowledge in recognising unethical service offerings by third-party services (e.g. adding authors, citations and data/images). The survey responses also show that even though respondents in the undergraduate cohort are already actively publishing articles as well as using third-party manuscript preparation/editing services, they have limited access to training and have high levels of uncertainty about authorship responsibilities. Out of all key stakeholders, respondents perceive research institutions to be mainly responsible for upholding research integrity standards as well as providing access to training.
Research limitations: As with all voluntary online surveys, the study design includes inherent limitations due to the self-reported nature of the responses. The respondents who participate are likely to have a particular interest and a higher level of awareness about the survey topic, and so the self-selecting nature of the participants can introduce personal biases, which can affect the overall results. This survey was sent to members of a WeChat channel focused on journal rankings, which also discusses research integrity issues, so the respondents may not provide a general representation of their career stage/subject discipline cohorts. The sample sizes were not comparable across all cohorts, so direct comparisons could not always be made. Instead, where appropriate, separate comparisons were made between Undergraduate students, Master’s students, PhD candidates and Researchers (29.26%-18.68% of respondents), or between Research managers, Researcher with research management responsibilities and Librarians (4.28%-2.53% of respondents).
Practical implications: It is important to ensure that research integrity and publishing ethics training and education needs are being met for researchers at all levels, including undergraduates. Findings from the survey highlight the importance of establishing training and education programmes tailored towards addressing specific areas of common confusion or limited awareness, especially to reduce the risk of unintentional misconduct. The findings from this survey can be used to inform training and education partnerships and collaborations across key stakeholders, including research institutions and publishers, so that we can collectively improve the overall integrity of scholarly publishing. A table of recommendations and a hypothetical case have been included to illustrate how this can be achieved.
Originality/value: To our knowledge, this is the first survey on this topic developed via a collaboration between the research integrity team at an international scholarly publisher and scientometrics researchers based in China. Sharing our perspectives and experience to develop the survey questions has helped to highlight the common areas of confusion regarding authorship responsibilities and ethical third-party service offerings within researchers in China, even amongst those who do have access to training.