针对科研不端，中国已建立起以立法、规范性文件和部门规章为依据的科研不端治理机制。但现行的科研不端治理机制仍在事前、事中、事后存在问题，具体体现于科研数据管理、调查处理模式、惩戒措施等方面。梳理了国外科研不端治理的有益经验，分析了中国科研不端的成因与治理机制存在的问题，指出应侧重建立多元的科研评价机制、完善科研数据管理机制、设立独立的科研不端监管部门、细化科研不端的惩处。
To address scientific misconduct China has established a governance mechanism based on legislation, normative documents and departmental rules. However, the current governance mechanism of scientific research misconduct still has problems in the whole cycle (before, during and after the event), which are specifically reflected in scientific research data management, investigation and processing modes, disciplinary measures, etc. This paper combs the beneficial experience of foreign countries in these respects, analyzes the causes of China's scientific research misconduct and the problems in the governance mechanism, provides a reference for adjusting China's scientific research misconduct governance mechanism, and points out that we should focus on establishing a diversified scientific research evaluation mechanism, improving scientific research data management mechanism, establishing an independent regulatory department to deal with scientific research misconduct, and refining the punishment for scientific research misconduct.
[1] 王建升. 研究生学术不端行为成因、危害及治理对策[J].长江大学学报(社科版), 2013, 36(5): 154-156.
[2] Qiu J. Publish or perish in China: The pressure to rack up publications in high-impact journals could encourage misconduct, some say[J]. Nature, 2010, 463(7278): 142-144.
[3] Werner R. The focus on bibliometrics makes papers less useful[J]. Nature, 2015, 517(7534): 245.
[4] Haven T L, Tijdink J K, Pasman H R, et al. Researchers'perceptions of research misbehaviours: A mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam[J]. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2019, 4(1): 1-12.
[5] Fanelli D, Costas R, Larivière V. Misconduct policies, academic culture and career stage, not gender or pressures to publish, affect scientific integrity[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(6): e0127556.
[6] 贺德方, 陈宝明, 周华东 . 国际科技立法发展趋势分析及若干思考[J]. 中国软科学, 2020(12): 1-10.
[7] 周子勋. 新《科学技术进步法》有三大亮点[N]. 中国经济时报, 2021-12-27(02).
[8] 谢小瑶, 叶继元 . 高校查处学术不端行为的双重困境与制度选择[J]. 南京大学学报, 2016, 53(4): 70-83.
[9] 萨达卡特·卡德里. 审判为什么不公正[M]. 杨雄, 译. 北京: 新星出版社, 2014: 63.
[10] 蒋悟真, 阳雨璇 . 科研不端惩戒机制：实质、困境及其逻辑构设[J]. 法学论坛, 2021, 36(6): 129-139.
[11] 刘振天. 破“五唯”立新规：教育评价改革的本体追求与成本约束[J]. 高等教育研究, 2022, 43(4): 8-17.
[12] 顾海波, 赵越 . 高校科研评价规则变革问题研究[J]. 科研管理, 2017, 38(8): 126-133.
[13] 陈楠楠 . 试论借鉴国外经验完善我国高校科研评价体系[J]. 高教探索, 2017(1): 100-104.
[14] Watt I. Report of the review of research policy and funding arrangements[EB/OL]. (2015-11-03) [2022-08-28]. https://www.dese.gov.au/review-research-policy-and-funding-arrangements/re-sources/review-research-policy-and-funding-arrangements-report-november-2015.
[15] Manasseh S. The impact of the performance-based research fund on accounting academics' life in universities in New Zealand[M]. New Zealand: The University of Waikato, 2020: 43-44.
[16] 邢文明, 陈继丽, 王张华. 面向科研诚信的科研数据管理保存：逻辑关联、作用机制与实现策略[J]. 图书情报知识, 2021, 38(6): 134-143.
[17] National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Australian code for the responsible conduct of research(2018)[EB/OL]. (2018-06-28)[2022-08-30]. https://www. nhmrc. gov. au/sites/default/files/documents/attachments/grant%20documents/The-australian-code-for-the-responsible-conduct-of-research-2018.pdf.
[18] All European Academies. The European code of conduct for research integrity[EB/OL]. (2017-07-27) [2022-08-25]. https://www.esf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/esf/Code_Conduct_ResearchIntegrity_2011.pdf.
[19] University of Oxford. Policy on the management of research data and records[EB/OL]. (2016-02-11)[2022-08-25]. https://researchdata.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/126/2014/01/Policy_on_the_Management_of_Research_Data_and_Records.pdf.
[20] 胡剑. 德国科研不端行为治理体系的特点及启示[J]. 科技管理研究, 2013, 33(18): 181-184.
[21] 弗里德里希·冯·哈耶克. 通往奴役之路[M]. 王明毅, 冯兴元, 马雪芹, 等, 译 . 北京: 中国社会科学出版社,1997: 101.
[22] 胡志斌, 刘紫良, 孙超. 学术不端行为的刑法规制研究[J]. 学术界, 2011(10): 39-47, 267-269.
[23] 牛忠志 . 科技法律秩序的刑法保护研究》[M]. 北京: 知识产权出版社, 2019: 192-198.
