| 科研不端行为的惩罚强度研究 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 科研不端行为的惩罚强度研究.科研不端行为的惩罚强度研究[J].科学学研究,2021,39(8):1345-1353. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 科研不端行为的惩罚强度研究 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1. 广州大学公共管理学院;2. 中国科学学与科技政策研究会;3. ;4. 广州大学; |
| |
| 摘 要： | 政府、学界和社会越来越关注科研不端行为，治理科研不端有助于科研生态系统的健康发展，健全惩罚机制是治理科研不端的主要手段。学术界已经认同科研不端的惩罚力度比较弱，然而科研不端惩罚强度设定及其影响因素的研究还相对缺乏。借助于公开数据，收集了1997-2017年213个典型科研不端案例，构建了科研不端惩罚强度的七个等级，借助于统计软件分析了惩罚强度的影响因素，研究发现：绝大多数案例的惩罚强度在一级到四级之间；社会整体的惩罚强度在增强，但是单个案例的惩罚强度并没有随时间而增强；媒体关注力度显著影响到惩罚强度；科研不端类型叠加对惩罚强度有一定影响。在此基础上，讨论了撤除措施与惩罚措施的区分，学术不端的公共围观效应能否发挥作用，分段惩罚的实施难点，学术规范的内化与过度激励论文数量的内在矛盾。
|
| 收稿时间： | 2020-08-28 |
Rsearch on the Punishment Intensity of Scientific Research Misconduct in Academic Institutions |
| |
| Abstract: | The government, academia and society are paying more and more attention to scientific research misconduct. Governance of misconduct in scientific research is conducive to the healthy development of the scientific research ecosystem, and improving the punishment mechanism is the main means of governance of misconduct in scientific research.The academic circles have agreed that the punishment intensity for scientific misconduct is relatively weak.It is still relatively lacking and insufficient about the research on the punishment intensity setting and its influencing factors for scientific misconduct.Based on public data, the paper have been collected 213 typical scientific research misconduct cases from 1997 to 2017 and have been constructed seven levels of punishment intensity for scientific research misconduct. With the aid of statistical software, it have been analyzed the influence factors of punishment intensity.The research in this paper finds that the punishment intensity of most cases is between the first and fourth levels, and very few cases exceed the fourth level.Due to the increase in attention, the intensity of punishment in society as a whole has increased, but the intensity of punishment in a single case has not increased over time.The intensity of media attention significantly affects the intensity of punishment; at the same time,the previous notifications of the National Science Foundation of China have gone through a process of increasing publicity: from “someone” of the person’s name and “a certain university” of the institution for academic misconduct to the real-name of the person’s name and “a certain university” of the institution, then come to the real name of the person and the institution. The increasing intensity of notification means that the intensity of punishment is also increasing accordingly.The superposition of scientific misconduct types has a certain impact on the intensity of punishment. There is a significant difference between the punishment intensity of one type of scientific research misconduct and the punishment intensity of the three types of scientific research misconduct.
On this basis, it discusses the distinction between removal measures and punishment measures, corrective measures are not the category of punishment. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish and refine corrective measures and punishment measures in terms of policy.Then discusses whether the public onlooker effect of academic misconduct can play a role.The institution behavior before and after the public onlooker effect are two sets of logic:the former is to reduce the degree of publicity as much as possible, reduce the impact on the institution’s reputation, and control the handling of the incident within the internal administrative process of the institution;the latter means that since it has been publicly onlooker effect, timely handling is the only way to eliminate adverse effects.And discusses the difficulty of segmented punishment.The implementation of segmented punishment depends on the society’s tolerance for academic misconduct, and the recognition and consensus of social norms.Regarding the problem of scientific research misconduct,it is necessary to get rid of legal centralism and document centralism and carefully review the systemic policy conflict between the current system of over-stimulating the number of papers and combating academic misconduct, so as to achieve cooperative governance pattern of national regulation, academic institution discipline and scholar autonomy. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《科学学研究》浏览原始摘要信息 |
| 点击此处可从《科学学研究》下载免费的PDF全文 |
|
