Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China

China’s retraction crisis has raised concerns about research integrity and accountability within its scientific community and beyond. To address this issue, we proposed in an earlier publication that Chinese research funders incorporate retraction records into the evaluation of research funding applications by establishing a retraction-based review system. This review system would debar researchers with retraction records from applying for funding for a specified period. However, our earlier proposal lacked practical guidance on how to operationalize such a review system. In this article, we expand on our proposal by fleshing out the proposed ten debarment determinants and offering a framework for quantifying the duration of funding ineligibility. Additionally, we outline the critical steps for implementing the retraction-based review system, address the major challenges to its effective and sustainable adoption, and propose viable solutions to these challenges. Finally, we discuss the benefits of implementing the review system, emphasizing its potential to strengthen research integrity and foster a culture of accountability in the Chinese academic community.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Publications
Published
2025-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13030041
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Academic integrity and plagiarism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.73

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China

Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu
2 citations
Publications
Academic integrity and plagiarism
4.73
article

Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China

Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu
article en
2 citations

Abstract

China’s retraction crisis has raised concerns about research integrity and accountability within its scientific community and beyond. To address this issue, we proposed in an earlier publication that Chinese research funders incorporate retraction records into the evaluation of research funding applications by establishing a retraction-based review system. This review system would debar researchers with retraction records from applying for funding for a specified period. However, our earlier proposal lacked practical guidance on how to operationalize such a review system. In this article, we expand on our proposal by fleshing out the proposed ten debarment determinants and offering a framework for quantifying the duration of funding ineligibility. Additionally, we outline the critical steps for implementing the retraction-based review system, address the major challenges to its effective and sustainable adoption, and propose viable solutions to these challenges. Finally, we discuss the benefits of implementing the review system, emphasizing its potential to strengthen research integrity and foster a culture of accountability in the Chinese academic community.

PublicationsVol. 13(3)
Huanggang Normal University (CN), Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Huanggang Normal University
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Academic integrity and plagiarism
4.73
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Reckoning with Retractions in Research Funding Reviews: The Case of China — Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu · Publications (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS