fiffffi ˇ - static.springer.com · including news and comment from Nature, and the leading...

Turning Point Chinese Science in Transition

Research undertaken by

Charlotte LiuNick CampbellEd GerstnerAmy LinPiao LiStephen Pincock

Chandler GibbonsYingying ZhouChris GillochKun HuangNicky Phillips

ABOUT SPRINGER NATURESpringer Nature is a leading global research, educational and professional publisher, home to an array of respected and trusted brands providing quality content through a range of innovative products and services. Springer Nature is the world’s largest academic book publisher, publisher of the world’s highest impact journals and a pioneer in the field of open research. The company numbers almost 13,000 staff in over 50 countries and has a turnover of approximately EUR 1.5 billion. Springer Nature was formed in 2015 through the merging of Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, Macmillan Education and Springer Science+Business Media.

ABOUT NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP (NPG)Nature Publishing Group (NPG) is a publisher of high impact scientific information in print and online. NPG publishes journals, online databases and services across the life, physical, chemical and applied sciences.

Focusing on the needs of scientists, Nature (founded in 1869) is the leading weekly, international scientific journal. NPG publishes a range of Nature research journals and Nature Reviews journals, and a range of prestigious academic and partner journals including society-owned publications. Online, nature.com provides over 8 million visitors per month with access to NPG publications and services, including news and comment from Nature, and the leading scientific jobs board Naturejobs. Scientific American is at the heart of NPG’s consumer media division. Founded in 1845, Scientific American is the oldest continuously published magazine in the US and the leading authoritative publication for science in the general media.

SPRINGER NATURE IN CHINASpringer Nature has offices in Shanghai and Beijing, housing over 200 staff members from Nature Publishing Group, Springer, Macmillan Education, Palgrave Macmillan and BioMed Central. They are servicing Chinese academic researchers, students, teachers, institutions, professionals and the wider public, by helping them discover more.

www.springernature.com

Turning Point Chinese Science in Transition

Research undertaken byTurning Point Chinese Science in Transition

Research undertaken by

Nature Publishing Group | Turning Point | I

TURNING POINT

After several decades of rapid growth, China is now the world’s second largest economy. The challenge it faces in continuing this remarkable development is to find the best path to a sustainable knowledge-based future. China’s research base needs to be at the heart of this transition. Significant and increasing investment has already brought a dramatic increase in the country’s scientific output. However, at this crucial turning point, the research environment in China faces unique challenges.

Drawing on extensive quantitative and qualitative data gathered from Chinese researchers themselves, we have iden-tified opportunities for the key stake-holders in the research ecosystem to improve the quality and impact of Chinese science. Our focus is on the key stages of funding, conducting, and sharing research.

Funding science While China spent 2.1 percent of its GDP on R&D in 2014, in line with other developed countries such as the US and UK, it spends only a fraction of that on basic research. More than 80% of research group leaders — also known as principal investigators (PIs) — surveyed said that the country should devote more funding to basic research. Given that many important advances in applied research originate with advances in fundamental understanding, boosting basic research funding would be a prescient long-term strategy for fostering innovation.

Exploratory research requires long-term commitment. While some funding agencies have dedicated grants for young

scientists, some survey respondents said these were often small and short-term. Funding bodies might consider expand-ing programs that offer larger grants over a longer time frame, especially for ear-ly-career researchers, who are often the most innovative and productive members of the scientific workforce.

China’s funding system has already made some significant progress towards a more rigorously meritocratic assess-ment approach. This successful set-up, acknowledged by Chinese researchers as an improvement, needs to be imple-mented more broadly to promote a greater sense of fairness and transpar-ency. Additionally, researchers would be more efficient and productive if funders allowed more flexibility and streamlined compliance procedures for when grant money is spent.

Doing scienceThe increase in funding in recent decades has led to a larger proportion of young scientists running their own laboratories and research projects. This independ-ence gives them space to innovate, but

Executive Summary

II | Turning Point | Nature Publishing Group

leaves them with insufficient support from senior colleagues and with fewer opportunities to collaborate. Reducing the administrative workloads of senior scientists and freeing time for them to mentor less experienced peers could help address this issue. Training in areas such as science writing, data management and ethics can also play a critical role in shaping China’s future research culture.

While China has the largest base of PhD students and the largest science and technology workforce in the world, there are two major gaps in its workforce — a lack of lab technicians and post-doctoral fellows. Addressing these shortages will be critical for Chinese science to continue competing on a global stage, and will probably require a promotion of the value institutes place on these positions. Greater compensation for contract-based researchers, less emphasis on hiring researchers with overseas experience and reforming strict hiring rules are some clear measures that would help address these shortfalls.

Publication in a high-impact journal remains an important measure of a sci-entist’s success in China. While this focus has raised the quality of the coun-try’s science output, simple quantitative driven assessment and authorship credit allocation can be a disincentive for col-

laboration and a catalyst for unethical behavior. A broader range of assessment measures could better encourage scien-tists to collaborate and reduce pressure to cut corners. When unethical behavior is identified, funders and institutes should aim to set up independent investigations that penalize those found violating codes of ethics.

Sharing scienceScience is an international endeavor that ultimately relies on maximizing the free and open exchange of knowledge. Chinese scientists have limited enthu-siasm for, or awareness of, the global trend towards openly sharing data. Implementing measures that better encourage researchers to share their data and research would benefit their partici-pation in this global movement.

Writing papers and communicating research findings are important tasks that many survey respondents identi-fied as a challenge. Better training in scientific writing for researchers would address part of this problem, as would an industry-wide accreditation system that can monitor and improve commer-cial editing services. There is also a clear need for institutes to offer incentives for researchers who talk about their work with the public and industry. ■

Objective Explore the direction and strategy of the next phase growth of China’s science, based on insights from working scientists in China

First-hand research in 2015 covering a broad range of scientists across disciplines and regions in China• Online survey: 1690 completed respondents• In-depth interviews: 32 interviews in four cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Xi’an)

Approach

Scope

Funding science

• Size and growth• Fairness; E�ciency• High risk/curiosity driven research• Young scientists

Doing science

How scientists are assessed and rewarded underpins all of above

Researchers at the heart

• Training; Mentoring• Talent structure• Collaboration• Ethics

Sharing science

• Writing paper• Publishing• Open data• Broader science communication to public and policy makers

The study aimed to shed light on the future directions for Chinese science, based on the first-hand experiences of active researchers.

Nature Publishing Group | Turning Point | 1

TURNING POINT

Turning Point

Chinese Science In TransitionOver the past three decades, China has dazzled the world with its rapid economic growth and burgeoning prosperity. But, with the ageing of its population and slowing economy, China is at a critical point at which it will be necessary to shift from resource- and investment-intensive growth towards a higher value-added model. The country is already taking steps to transform its focus to a more qualitative outlook to foster balanced and sustainable growth, economically, socially and environmentally. During this transition, technological innovation has emerged as a driver of economic progress, and China is now turning to its research base in a push to upgrade industry and achieve sustainable development.

Recognizing the importance of research in driving development, China has also made great strides in scientific research. Commensurate with its status as the second largest economy in the world, the country is now ranked second in the world in both research and devel-opment (R&D) investment and scien-tific output. China spent 1,331 billion RMB on R&D in 2014, second only to the USA1. The number of Chinese papers in the Science Citation Index (SCI) was 245,000 in 20142, also second in the world. Moreover, China’s status as the second largest country contrib-utor to the Nature Index demonstrates

its strength in high-quality research3. Its applications for domestic inventive patents totalled 928,000 in 2014, making China number one globally for the fourth consecutive year4.

However, the average academic impact of Chinese research does not match its exceptional growth in output. While China is making great progress in high-quality publications, it lags behind the world average in many subject areas in normalized citation impact5, an indicator of academic impact. So, while in absolute terms China’s contri-bution to the world’s high cited papers is second only to the USA, there is still

scope for this contribution to grow. There are also deficits in some areas of high-quality output relative to that of western nations, chemistry and physical sciences being much stronger than bio-logical sciences6.

Beyond average academic impact, there are also concerns that China lags behind in producing break-through research with wide-ranging impact. Many worry that the impact made by Tu Youyou, who was awarded China’s first Nobel Prize in science this year for the work that led to a treatment for malaria that has saved countless lives, is the exception that proves the rule. Currently the Chinese research assess-ment system, as in many other coun-tries, relies heavily on simple metrics like number of papers published in JCR-listed (SCI) journals. Factors such as economic and social impacts of the research are given less weight. Moreover, the lack of effective commercialization schemes impedes the realization of such impacts. Chinese research, as with its economy, is at a significant juncture. China needs to transform its science and research culture to focus more on quality and efficiency — rather than simply quantity — in order to sustain its scientific development and convert sci-entific output into productivity.

In a bid to identify opportunities and challenges that Chinese science is facing, Nature Publishing Group (NPG) interviewed and surveyed almost 1,700 researchers across China, who have publications in NPG journals. The details of the researchers included in the study are shown in Figure 1. This white paper is based on their voices. ■

1. National Bureau of Statistics of China: Annual Data (2014)2. Web of ScienceTM - Science Citation Index Expanded3. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7556_supp/fig_tab/522S34a_T1.html4. State Intellectual Property Office of China 5. http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/chinas_absorptive_state_0.pdf6. http://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/China

2 | Turning Point | Nature Publishing Group

TURNING POINT

Scientists:The Key Resource

Human capital is at the core of the transition in Chinese science. The Chinese government has made great efforts to expand its base of scientists in the past two decades: China’s human resources in science and technology totalled 3.9 million in 20147, and with the expansion of China’s higher education system since 1999 the number of bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering has also soared, reaching 1.6 million in 20138. In addition to the increase in the size of the Chinese research workforce, China’s increased efforts to attract, develop and retain talented researchers have secured many from abroad, the vast majority from the Chinese scientific diaspora in North America and Europe.

Researcher mobility: from brain drain to “haigui9”For many years, China has watched a mass exodus of students and scientists to more advanced nations. Data from the USA’s National Science Foundation suggest that the number of Chinese graduate students in American science and engineering programs nearly tripled from 15,000 in 1987 to 43,000 in 2010, making China the largest external source of science doctoral graduates in the USA10. Most of these graduates tended to remain in the USA, enticed by higher salaries and a better research environment11.

But this pattern is changing as China continues to invest in and build its science infrastructure. The government has launched a number of initiatives to encourage Chinese-born scientists to return. One such initiative, the ‘1,000 Talent Plan’, aims to attract top scien-tists from overseas, particularly those of Chinese origin, by offering well-funded academic positions with significant incen-tives. The 1,000 Talent Plan has succeeded in bringing back senior Chinese scientists, including heavyweights such as Tsinghua’s Yigong Shi, who was elected as a foreign

associate of the USA’s National Academy of Science, and Jianwei Pan from Univer-sity of Science and Technology of China (USTC), the first Chinese winner of the International Quantum Communica-tion Award. China’s long-lamented ‘brain drain’ has now become a ‘brain gain’, with a growing number of foreign-trained Chinese scientists returning, bringing knowledge and a more global perspective on research culture and practice. Almost all of the interviewees and nearly half of the survey respondents in the NPG study are among this wave of Chinese scientists returning from abroad to work in China.

Our new data from young Chinese researchers also point toward a more established ‘brain boomerang’ or ‘haigui’ pattern in future. Although many of the PhDs and postdocs surveyed by NPG still plan to go abroad for a period, the vast majority indicated that they plan to return to China within five years (see Figure 2). A desire to broaden their research perspective and experience, rather than purely a high salary, was the main reason underpinning an interest in going abroad. Many research-ers also indicated overseas study or work experience would give them an edge when

“China is transitioning; it is at a turning point. We can expect that within the next five years or so, not exceeding 10 years, there will be a wave of foreign students coming to study in China from across the globe, just like the situation in Japan in the 80s … Right now, the foreign students are mainly from places such as India, Pakistan, and Iran. But there are also gradually more coming from Korea and Japan. Soon, the trend will appear for [students in] the USA and Europe.” – PI, age 45-54, Xi’an

7. National Bureau of Statistics of China: Annual Data (2014) 8. National Bureau of Statistics of China: China Statistical Yearbook (2014)9. This is a Chinese slang term referring to Chinese people who have returned to mainland China after having studied or

worked abroad. Literally meaning “sea turtle” in English, this pun also has a metaphor as sea turtles also travel great distances overseas.

10. National Science Foundation: Science and Engineering Indicator 2004, 201211. http://www.nature.com/news/global-mobility-science-on-the-move-1.11602


TURNING POINT

Beijing & Shanghai (40%)

Beijing

Other (60%)

Other(9%) Post-doc (6%)

Research role

<35 35 – 44 >45

PhD students (25%)

Biological sciences 1036 (61%)

Ages (%) Region

Earth sciences 97 (6%)

Chemical sciences 251 (15%)

Physical sciences 306 (18%)

CAS and otherinstitute 629 (37%)

University1,061 (63%)

Type of institute

Research area

Online survey: Total = 1,690 participants

ShanghaiPI (59%)

No 26%No 26%

Yes = 74%Yes = 74% 2 - 5 yrs = 65%

5 - 10 yrs4%

Not sure7%

Not sure7%

Entire researchlife abroad 4%

<2 yrs 20%

Do you plan to do a post-doc abroad?PhD students and post-docs

N = 536

If you intend to do a post-doc abroad, how many years do you plan to stay abroad?

PhD students and post-docswho plan to do a post-doc abroad

N = 398

FIGURE 1. We surveyed 1,690 researchers who represent a spectrum of ages, backgrounds and regional areas of China. In addition, 32 principal investigators were interviewed. Source: NPG study conducted in May and June, 2015.

seeking positions or funding in China. It is clear, then, that many young scientists are confident in the ongoing improvement of the research environment in China. With the right support, the next generation of scientists is ready to start giving back to China’s scientific community.

Foreign-born scientists and students are also starting to turn to China, attracted by its increased funding and improved research environment as the country becomes a global centre both economically and in terms of scientific research12. Many foreign universities and institutes, such as New York University, Liverpool Univer-sity, Monash University and the McGovern Brain Institute, have opened campuses and research centres in China jointly with local universities. These joint ventures recruit faculty members and students globally, bringing non-Chinese researchers into the Chinese science community and further promoting international collaboration.

The two-way researcher flow also promotes a virtuous cycle in which inno-vative ideas, talented young researchers and research culture and practice are shared, benefiting both China and the countries in which its researchers spend time, as well as encouraging international collaboration.

Moving forward: addressing the needs of scientistsThe reversal of China’s ‘brain drain’ to a ‘brain boomerang’/‘haigui’ is a success story that reflects China’s increased

standing in the global environment. However, challenges remain. The research environment also needs to be globally competitive in order to develop and retain the best of these researchers. It will be vital to implement policies and funding schemes that address scientists’ needs, foster a more productive research environment, and enable research to exert a greater academic, economic and social impact. To establish what reforms may be needed requires a clear under-standing of how science is currently funded, conducted, shared and assessed in China from the perspective of scientists themselves. Here we look at the needs and concerns identified by the survey respondents and interviewees across three key stages: funding science, doing science and sharing science13. ■

12. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/524S6a.html13. For research assessment, please refer to the Nature Outlook supplement, “Chinese Science under Magnifying Glasses”,

published in April 2015. The topic is not discussed in detail here.

FIGURE 2. While the majority of Chinese PhD students and postdocs still hope to travel abroad, most plan to return to pursue science careers in China.


TURNING POINT

Balancing priorities It may seem puzzling that despite the rapid expansion of research funding by the Chinese government, a large proportion of scientists feel that securing funding has become more difficult in the last five years. Increased competition certainly plays a role as the numbers of

senior researchers returning from abroad and young researchers starting their own labs in China continue to rise. However, the structure for allocating funds, which is still far from perfect, may also be a factor. The surveyed scientists identified several key areas where there are oppor-tunities for improvement.

Funding Science:Towards optimized support for excellence and innovation

While research funding in many countries worldwide has been under increasing pressure, China’s rapid economic growth has fuelled expansion in its R&D spending. China’s R&D spending increased by 16% CAGR for the past 20 years (at a comparable price) to RMB 1,331 billion in 2014, reaching 2.1% of the national GDP14. Most of these funds were devoted to technology development and were spent by industry. Higher education and public research institutes accounted for around one fifth of the total R&D spending, most of which was provided by the government. For scientists working at universities and institutes — the focus of our study — the three main funding sources are the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), and the institutes or universities at which the researchers work. In the last category the most significant funders of these research institutions are the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). The mechanisms through which these funds are allocated are crucial for Chinese research and researchers. Our findings show that the fairness and efficiency of these processes has improved substantially in recent years, but also point to areas where more work is needed.

14. National Bureau of Statistics of China: Annual Data (2014)


TURNING POINT

First, Chinese funding bodies can drive profound innovation by funding more basic research. Current funding schemes tend to favour applied research due to its more direct and immediate impact. However, basic research is also important and in many cases has a more profound impact. Basic research accounts for only 5% of the country’s total R&D expenditure. This is much lower than in the USA (18%), the UK (16%) and Japan (12%)15. More than 80% of the PIs surveyed by NPG felt that the Chinese government should spend more on basic research.

Given that most of the scientists included in the survey work in basic research, this is perhaps unsurpris-ing. Nonetheless, the US, the UK and Japan spend so much on basic research because many of the most important advances in applied research stem from advances in fundamental understanding. Cancer immunotherapy is an instructive example. This field looks likely to trans-form our ability to treat a wide range of major cancers. However the research that underpins this impressive recent progress all derives from quite basic studies of human immunology.

Second, continued investment in ‘blue sky’ ideas will generate long-term rewards. Risk-taking is a crucial part of innovation. But, given their inherent uncertainty, the most innovative ideas often do not initially get much recogni-tion. China is not alone in generally pri-

oritizing funding of research that builds incrementally on what has come before. Three-quarters of the surveyed PIs believed that funders do not take enough risks in funding research whose poten-tial impact or practical value is unclear. Funding for niche topics and new areas is too limited by the research backgrounds of the reviewers and the subject area requirements of the grant programmes.

Things are changing, thanks in large part to the NSFC’s General Program, which funds around 15,000 grants per year at an average of 800K RMB for 4 years. It promotes innovative research, encouraging scientists to select topics freely within the funding areas defined by NSFC. With a wide coverage of basic dis-ciplines and of scientists at various career stages, the General Program also helps to promote balanced and coordinated disciplinary development. To specifically target blue-sky research, the NSFC offers small one-year grants for high-risk ideas and a special scheme to fund ideas for which a consensus has not yet emerged. These trends represent a huge step for funding innovative research.

Third, funding bodies can improve productivity and derive longer term benefits by investing more in young scientists. Young Chinese PIs who have just started their independent research can take advantage of support from the government and their own institutes. Institutes typically grant young PIs start-up funds as part of their compensa-

Table 1 | Main funding programs available for young scientists in China

Funding agency Program # Awarded 2014

Total amount (RMB, 2014)

Scope

NSFC General Program 15, 000 800K/4 year None

NSFC Young Scientists Fund

16, 421 240K/3 year Male: below age 35 Female: below age 40

NSFC Excellent Young Scientists Fund

400 1 million/3 year Male: below age 38 Female: below age 40

NSFC Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars

198 4 million/5 year Below age 45

NSFC Key program 605 3.4 million/5 year None

Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee

1000 Young Talent Plan

~400 per year (2011-2015)

1 – 3 million/3 year Below age 40

MOST 973 Program for Young Scientists

30 projects 5 million/5 year Below age 35 Maximum of 5 team members

Source: NSFC; MOST; 1,000 Talent Plan. In 2015, 1 USD = approximately 6.27 RMB

15. OECD Research and Development Statistics (2015)

“Especially for very basic research, our country does not provide enough support. However, basic research projects are usually essential for the promotion of the overall soft power of a nation. Take Nash’s game theory as an example … no one saw any commercial value of this purely theoretical study back then … but it has made very significant impacts later on …. [Nash’s] university or his country has a mechanism in the research system to support such theoretical studies or very basic research.”

-PI, age 25-34, Nanjing

“It’s very hard to get grants if you write some very original or innovative ideas in your proposal. Reviewers may not understand your idea or they may think that’s too risky and don’t believe you can make it… Things have improved a lot with some special schemes in recent years.” –PI, age 45-54, Xi’an


TURNING POINT

tion packages to help them start labs and research projects. The government also has earmarked funds to support young scientists, including the NSFC’s Young Scientists Fund and the more competi-tive Excellent Young Scientists Fund and National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (see Table 1).

The well-known 1,000 Talent Plan, initiated by the Organization Depart-ment of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, includes the ‘1,000 Young Talent Plan’, which aims to attract scientists under the age of 40 from overseas. The 973 Program, princi-pally a megaproject funding scheme, has recently also implemented a mechanism to fund smaller projects earmarked for young scientists.

However, our findings suggest that current programmes have room to grow. There is a specific lack of larger and more stable programmes targeting young researchers. The most accessi-ble programmes for young researchers, the NSFC’s General Program, Young Scientists Fund and start-up funding from institutes, typically provide from 200K to 800K RMB for a 3- to 4-year term (see Table 1). This level may not be enough for the most innovative and productive young scientists to keep their labs running. Truly innovative research requires a longer-term commitment with more funds. The most generous programmes targeting young scientists typically have tight quotas and are very competitive. Applicants must spend extensive time and effort seeking multiple grants from various sources, detracting from their work at a time when most scientists are at their most productive. A 3-year term is also quite short, given that it may take 2 to 3 years to set up a lab in many fields.

Most young scientists are not in a position to obtain funding from meg-aproject grants, which attract anywhere from tens of millions to even hundreds of millions of RMB and awarded to only a small group of high-profile sci-entists so young scientists in research areas outside such megaprojects cannot access such funds. While the megapro-jects are important for meeting national interests, they should not be overempha-sized to the detriment of funds directed to a wider variety of smaller projects, particularly those for talented young researchers. Scientists are typically most productive in their 30s and 40s, so securing sufficient funds at this stage is crucial for innovation.

Fourth, research efficiency can be transformed through increas-ing funding allowances for human resources. Government agencies often set budget caps for specified categories, limiting the use of funds. Caps for the compensation of research staff tend to be low, typically 10-15%, whereas budgets for equipment, research materials and consumables are much higher. In most mature research countries, budget allo-cation for staff compensation is more flexible and could even account for a majority of the direct costs of research. Chinese research staff who are not on institutions’ payroll, including graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and con-tractor technicians, rely on grant money to supplement their lean salaries. Low budget caps for payroll make it difficult for PIs to hire necessary personnel.

More fair, less fairObservers of the Chinese science community often question the fairness and efficiency of the funding application process. In a 2010 editorial in Science, two scientists discussed the problem in China at the time in which grant applications were often being considered on personal or professional connections rather than scientific merit, which stymies innova-tion16. However, change is occurring. Two thirds of the PIs surveyed by NPG believe that the fairness and efficiency of the process have improved, largely

“For all the grant money I’ve got, I am still not able to hire the people I need to do the proposed research, as I don’t have the money to pay their salaries … My grant allows me to spend a lot of money on equipment. But without enough personnel to carry out the experiments, the spending would be a waste.”

– PI, age 35-44, Xi’an16. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5996/1128.full

“The NSFC’s General Program is capped at 800K RMB for 3 years and is not enough to run my lab. I will have to spend time seeking other funds. It would be great if I could receive 3 million RMB funding for 5 years, which would help me to better focus on my research, but there are very few such programs.”

- PI, age 35-44, Beijing


TURNING POINT

What proportion of your working hours do you spend on fundingapplications and evaluation?

N = 999, PI

41%

<10% 20 – 30%

>30%

10 – 20%

31%

9%

19%

“Their reviewers are selected from a pool of experts. With the improvement of researcher qualifications, the level of reviewers has also improved, and they are more professional. Thus, it’s less likely for them to be influenced by other factors, which increases the fairness [of the application]. To ensure the effectiveness and fairness of an evaluation system, the premise is to have enough qualified expert reviewers, so that you have the capacity to judge if the proposed research really meets your high standard.” - PI, age 35-44, Shanghai

attributable to procedures implemented by the NSFC, the leading funding source for Chinese scientists. NSFC has made major strides in improving the fairness of its application procedures. Nonetheless those surveyed pointed out several areas with room for improvement, particularly with respect to megaproject grants.

First, funding bodies can create an environment of transparency with more merit-based peer review. One of NSFC’s most lauded changes is its adoption of a merit-based peer review system, based on the US National Science Foundation model. To ensure the funds are distrib-uted based on research merit, NSFC draws its pool of reviewers from among well-established scientists recognized for their intellectual and ethical merit.

Chinese funding agencies must also combat the influence of an individual’s personal connections, known as guanxi. NSFC applies a rigorous two-stage review procedure. A ‘communicative review’ encourages reviewers to make judgments independently by sending in their reviews by mail. The panel review allows discussion among panellists, unidentified to each other before their meeting and are often asked to vote during closed meetings to avoid outside influence. The appeal mechanism also improves fairness.

These rigorous measures to prevent the influence of personal connections were highly praised by the researchers surveyed by NPG. “I think among our country’s research funding agencies, NSFC is the most trustworthy; it’s a very fair process”, remarked one senior researcher from Shanghai. “A typical example is its General Program. They have a five-member panel and if the panellists have very different opinions [regarding a proposal], there will be another round of review. As applicants, you also have the right to appeal for re-examination. This is unheard of in other agencies.”

More funding bodies should follow the NSFC’s example with an eye to refining the process further where problems arise. For instance, in panel reviews, senior panellists or academicians may dominate the discussion, overshadowing other reviewers.

Second, engagement of the broader research community when conceptual-izing and awarding megaproject grants can promote fairness and transparency in funding allocation. Megaprojects across the world, are typically aligned with national strategies and have resulted in spectacular outcomes. In China they are often proposed by a small group of high-profile experts selected by policy makers and the decision-making process is perceived as lacking input from the broader scientific community. Moreover, megaprojects usually have narrowly defined guidelines and conditions, restricting recipients to a pre-deter-mined few. This could confine explora-tion and stifle innovation. In addition, measures for the prevention of conflicts of interest are not rigorous enough — sci-entists involved in the programme design process may also apply for grants, giving them an unfair advantage.

How strict is too strict?Once a grant has been awarded to a scientist, the funds are not completely at his or her disposal. Several evaluations and audits follow to monitor the usage of the funds. Although checks are necessary to prevent corrup-tion and the improper usage of funds, excessively rigid regu-lations may reduce scientists’ efficiency. The PIs surveyed by NPG saw this as a major impediment and highlighted several ways to open avenues for productivity.

First, funders can help scientists to be more produc-tive and efficient by minimizing admin-istrative hurdles and optimizing flexibility in grant spending. Funding agencies typically require grantees to specify a budget plan, with detailed breakdowns and to strictly follow that plan after receiv-ing the grant. Making adjustments later on involves complicated procedures and is very difficult to get approved. Alas,

FIGURE 3. Funding applications and evaluations take up a significant portion of

researchers’ time.


TURNING POINT

the reality is that research is fraught with uncertainty, and is almost impossible to accurately budget years in advance. Strict caps set for specified funding categories, such as travel and payroll, interfere with scientists’ normal research activities.

For some major grants, future funding is cut if the money is not used by the end of the year for which it was earmarked. Scientists are then forced to spend the money within the timeframe, resulting in inefficiency and waste in some cases.

The NSFC has taken positive steps in easing onerous procedures in their funding application, review and eval-uation. For instance, the new Fund Management Method issued in April 2015 removed caps on labour expenses, improved the management of fund balance and increased flexibility in adjusting budgets. These positive steps are highly regarded by many PIs. Other Chinese funding bodies can follow suit.

Second, streamlining fund report-ing, evaluation and financial audit processes will allow more time for scientists to focus on research itself. Excessive evaluations and financial audits put unnecessary burdens on sci-entists. The researchers surveyed by NPG were generally satisfied with the rela-tively straightforward evaluation scheme for the NSFC programmes. However, some major programmes require several evaluations and strict financial audits. It is understandable that megaprojects require more demanding audit measures to prevent exploitation or mismanage-

ment, but scientists become frustrated with excessively tedious processes.

Around two fifths of the surveyed PIs reported spending more than 20% of their time on funding-related activities (see Figure 3). Partly due to intense com-petition, researchers devote extensive effort to grant applications. However, aside from time spent on research design, researchers also struggle with detailed budget and reporting requirements. Senior scientists — who are more likely to be applying for megaprojects and are frequently selected for evaluation com-mittees of major programmes — tend to spend even more time on funding-related activities. These added burdens distract scientists from research.

To address the challenges in the way it funds research, the Chinese government intends to restructure the funding system. By 2017, most of China’s competing grant projects will be discontinued in favour

of five major funding categories: NSFC; major national science and technology projects; key national research and devel-opment programmes; a fund to encour-age technological innovation and a fund to develop human resources and infra-structure. A joint council will be set up to unify research planning and priorities and allocate funds among different schemes, while scientific project management will be conducted by a professional agency under supervision of the government. This major overhaul of the science and tech-nology funding system aims to optimize allocation and streamline processes.

Our data confirm that China is making great progress in improving its funding system to better support scientists. Further improvements could do even more to foster an innovative research environment, but several aspects of China’s research culture and practice also require a closer look. ■

“Research plans are based on assumptions. But scientific research, by nature, has great uncertainty. I can not predict everything accurately, in many cases I need to change the original plan. But the procedure to adjust it is very complicated, this is not reasonable and it’s a waste of time.”


“It’s unnecessary to have such frequent evaluations and reviews. It overburdens not only the applicants, but also the reviewers. That means a double burden for senior scientists. Also, the financial audit [process and requirement] is too complicated, it’s very time-consuming to prepare those documents.”

-PI, age 45-54, Shanghai


TURNING POINT

Developing a supportive research cultureThe future of Chinese science relies on the development of young researchers, who need good teaching and good mentoring. The meaning of ‘good mentoring’ in practice depends on the context, and what works in one situation may not work in another. This is particularly pertinent to Chinese research institutions, in which teams are increasingly organized in smaller groups around many independent young PIs and moving away from larger groups organized around one or two senior profes-sors or researchers. The data we gathered allow us to pinpoint adjustments to foster a more supportive research culture.

First, evolution in the structure of research teams will require changes in

the way young PIs are supported. China has traditionally taken a group men-toring model in which young scientists start their careers affiliated with a senior PI and a larger group. In this appren-tice-like model, prevalent in Germany and Japan, autonomy for young scientists is more limited given the highly hierar-chical structure. In contrast, the individ-ual model of mentoring, typical in the USA, offers more impetus for innovation but less support and fewer collabora-tion opportunities.

In recent years as funds flow in to support independent labs headed by young PIs, more top Chinese institutes are adopting a model in which young PIs can strike out on their own from the start. However, as the traditional within-team

Doing Science:Research Culture and Practice

When funding has been secured and it comes time to start research, scientists must navigate a complex landscape to ensure that they have the knowledge and resources to accomplish what they have set out to do. Many of the challenges here are universal — researchers all around the world strive to network, keep their knowledge up to date, and avoid ethical slip-ups. But the research culture in China poses its own set of unique problems. At this turning point, China is seeing transformation in many aspects of its research culture, particularly in the ways knowledge is passed down from senior to junior researchers, how researchers collaborate, and how to navigate the grey areas of research ethics. China’s success in these transformations will likely depend on its ability to maintain a supportive, principled and collaborative research culture — and to nurture the necessary human resources.


TURNING POINT

mentoring fades, the onus is on young researchers to plan their own research and career trajectory with little support. More than three-quarters of the surveyed PIs felt that they did not receive enough mentor-ing when they first became PIs. Compared with their more established colleagues, young scientists were more likely to feel that the mentoring they received was insuf-ficient when they were PhDs or postdocs or had just started their own labs. Moreover, this problem is more prevalent for home-grown researchers: a higher proportion felt they were less mentored compared to peers trained overseas (Figure 4).

Young researchers should be encour-aged to seek mentoring from multiple sources while they develop independence. Those surveyed by NPG generally prefer to have the freedom to approach differ-ent senior scientists for guidance rather than limiting to an assigned mentor. This is generally aligned with the independent young PI model, which requires young researchers to take the initiative to seek support as needed and senior PIs to offer cross-team help to the young.

Second, institutes can free up senior scientists’ time for mentor-ing by reducing administrative work-loads. Chinese scientists are well aware of the benefits of mentoring and more than 90% of surveyed researchers agree that mentoring should be improved for young scientists. However, high administrative workloads limit the time senior PIs can devote to lab mentoring. Submitting applications, assessing major projects, and taking administrative roles are usually given higher priority than

mentoring. The administrative burdens on Chinese senior scientists are much heavier than for their peers in the west, leaving very little time for coaching.

Running a lab is more than ‘Chemistry 101’Researcher training is a significant issue for researchers. Currently, the greatest training burden falls on mentors, meaning the quality and method varies widely among PIs. To be successful, scientists require training in a wide range of areas — many of which Chinese scientists are already excelling in. But our data reveal that researchers consider training to be particularly lacking in several areas, and the quality also needs improvement.

First, improved training in writing papers and grant applications is needed to help Chinese scientists compete on the global stage. Scientific paper writing and publishing was identified by survey respondents as the area in which training was needed the most, despite the fact this training was the most widely provided (Figure 5). Many Chinese scientists are deeply concerned about this issue. English language writing plays an important role, while logical structuring of a scien-tific paper also poses a big challenge. As English is still the de facto language of science worldwide, it represents a major hurdle for Chinese scientists in sharing their discoveries with the world. Similarly, training in writing grant applications is in high demand, despite being relatively widely offered, due to China’s competitive funding environment and the central role of funding.

China/no time abroad Foreign trained

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Researcher

34%

58%

38%

3%

8%

60%

28%

56%

49%

8%

16%

43%

23%

55%

39%

28%

22%

34%

PhD Post-doc

Enoughmentoring

Some, butnot enough

Little or nomentoring

Do you feel you had enough mentoring during the following research stage?

FIGURE 4. A larger proportion of home-grown scientists felt that they received insufficient mentoring during their progression from PhD to postdoc to independent researcher.

“The biggest barrier to mentoring is that senior scientists are too busy today, with all the grant application and review and much additional work to do such as administrative meetings... If these distractions can be reduced, I really like to spend more time in the lab with the young scientists.” – PI, age 45-54, Shanghai


TURNING POINT

Second, expanded training in data management and research project man-agement will increase productivity, efficiency and reproducibility. As big data becomes more prevalent in research, particularly in the life sciences, com-putational skills and data management are becoming increasingly important. Moreover, PIs must be able to manage a large team of personnel effectively. However, the training typically offered to Chinese scientists focuses on conduct-ing research rather than management skills (see Figure 5).

Filling the human resource gaps to maximize research returnsChina has the world’s largest base of PhD students and the biggest science and tech-nology workforce. However, NPG’s survey revealed that the lack of postdoctoral fellows and lab technicians (Figure 6) represents a sore spot for many scientists. This is in contrast with the West, which sees a surplus of postdocs, many of whom come from China17. Postdocs and techni-cians are valuable members of the Chinese research environment, particularly at this turning point. Experienced postdocs can make PI’s time more scalable and can also play a key role in mentoring junior students and staff. Competent techni-

cians play an increasingly important role as more research requires equipment and technologies needing significant technical skills to use effectively. The shortfall of appropriate people for these roles in China can hamper productivity and decrease the return on investment. But how can Chinese institutions foster a more balanced human resource structure?

First and foremost, institutes can address human resource deficiencies by doing away with outdated person-nel management systems. The “bianzhi” system — a relic from the era of China’s “planned economy” under which a fixed number of staff are given permanent posi-tions with better benefits while others are limited to temporary contracts — is still prevalent in governmental organizations and institutions. In the current research environment in China, “bianzhi” is divert-ing talent away from postdoctoral fel-lowships and technician positions. Strict quotas and inflexible degree requirements make it difficult for many lab technicians to secure “bianzhi” positions. And the system focuses on grants and research papers as a means of assessment — metrics that typ-ically do not reflect the performance of technicians. In addition, institutes tend to favour researchers and professors when allocating precious “bianzhi” positions.

In which of these areas have you had training before (select all that apply)? (N = 1,690)

In which of these areas do you feel you would liketo have more training (select all that apply)? (N = 1,690)

68%

17%

EthicsEthics

48% 36%Paper writingand publishingPaper writingand publishing

38%

52%

Data managementData management

45% 50%

Research projectmanagement

Research projectmanagement

Laboratorymanagement

Laboratorymanagement

Grant applicationGrant application66%

53%

56%83%

17. http://www.nature.com/news/wanted-staff-scientist-positions-for-postdocs-1.17303

“Technicians typically just need a master’s degree, but my institute requires a doctoral degree for a “bianzhi” position, discouraging qualified graduate students. Yet, PhD students choosing academic careers prefer lecturer or researcher positions over technicians ... Technicians just don’t get enough attention. This is a ridiculous dilemma.”

– PI, age 45-54, Xi’an

FIGURE 5. Most Chinese scientists lack training in laboratory, data and research project management, while improved quality is needed for training in scientific writing and publishing

“Paper writing courses in the universities are not very effective. It only focuses on language issues but does not address the problem of logic structure. I heard some are delivered by foreign language department.”

- PI, age 35-44, Nanjing


TURNING POINT

The allure to “bianzhi” encourages quali-fied PhD graduates to pursue positions as teaching lecturers rather than postdocs or technicians.

Second, more competitive compen-sation for contract-based research staff is needed to retain talented staff. Due to government-enforced caps on labour expenses, PIs often do not have enough funds to offer competitive compensation to research staff that are not on the institu-tion’s payrolls, such as students, postdocs and contract-based technicians. As a result, these professionals seek industry jobs that offer more competitive packages. This problem is particularly prevalent in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, where the cost of living is high.

Third, by reorienting assessment to focus on research output rather than

overseas training experience, insti-tutes can keep more talented scientists in China. When recruiting faculty and offering promotions, many Chinese insti-tutes prefer scholars with a foreign degree or overseas work experience. Funding pro-grammes also favour overseas experience, and this is even a mandatory requirement for some programmes such as the ‘1,000 Talent Plan’. The emphasis on overseas expe-rience has brought tremendous benefits in the past several decades as scientists return-ing from abroad have greatly advanced China’s research culture. However, as China assumes a leading position in research infrastructure and capability, a majority of interviewed PIs believe the strong emphasis on overseas training is no longer construc-tive. Forcing the best PhD students and postdocs to go abroad for several years has contributed to the dearth of postdocs in China. This must be addressed if China is to take full advantage of its ever-improving research environment.

Collaboration does not come easyScience requires collaboration within and across teams. International collaboration is an increasingly important aspect of

What do you think is the biggest challenge that prevents you from securing these human resources?

52% 5%Most qualified candidates go abroad

5% 8%China does not produce enough qualified candidates

33% 37%Inadequate ear-marked funding

9% 48%Head count limit in my institute/lab

1% 1%Other

Post-docs (N = 229, PI) Technicians (N = 220, PI)

Which category of human resources do you feel are lacking in your team? (N = 670, PI)

Junior assistantresearchers

13%

Researchers 5%

Others 1%

Post-docs34%

Lab technicians 33%

PhD students14%

FIGURE 6. Chinese scientists identified the lack of postdocs and technicians as the biggest hurdle for their research teams.

“Regarding collaboration, a sensitive issue is how to share credit … One difference for us from foreign countries is that we over-emphasize the institution of the first author or even the first corresponding author [in the case of co-first author]. This is ridiculous and obviously shows the sign of administrative intrusion. This is a barrier rooted in our system.”

– PI, age 35-44, Nanjing


TURNING POINT

research, from the human genome project and the International Space Station to combating climate change. China has participated in a number of these, and scientists understand the importance of high-profile collaboration. Almost all the surveyed PIs agreed that opportunities for collaboration are improving in China. China has established more than a dozen state-supported collaborative centres to promote innovation and interdisciplinary studies at universities and research insti-tutes, and some of China’s major funding programmes, such as the 973 Program, have made collaboration from several teams or institutes mandatory. The allure of publishing in high-impact journals also drives collaboration — around three-quarters of the surveyed PIs felt that their chances of getting published would increase with international collaborators. Overall, scientists see great prospects for collaboration opportunities in China, but identified several barriers that should be addressed.

First, funders and institutes can promote domestic collaboration by con-sidering more nuanced ways of assess-ing research to ease the competition for first authorship. Perhaps the biggest issue facing collaboration lies in the attri-bution of authorship. The question of how to share credit among authors is a particularly thorny problem in domestic collaborations, as many Chinese scien-tists want to be the first author, or the corresponding author, so that their work

can be recognized by their institutes and funders. The problem is rooted in an over-simplified assessment system that focuses on numbers of publications and assigns credit for each article solely to the first author or corresponding author rather than a more appropriate allocation that recognizes the contributions of all authors. Moreover, the emphasis on the “first responsible institute” by Chinese institutes — in this case the first affilia-tion of the first author — also contributes to this problem.

This issue is less pronounced in inter-national collaborations, as foreign researchers tend to care less about being first authors, and typically will follow the professional principles of authorship attribution. While in China, such princi-ples are not prevalent and credit sharing tends to become a personal favour in many cases.

Second, Chinese policy-makers can facilitate international collaboration by removing administrative barriers to healthy academic exchange. In international efforts, another barrier to collaboration comes from the need to exchange physical materials. Samples or other materials mailed to China may be detained in customs for months, bringing research to a standstill and even render-ing certain biological materials unusable. Moreover, budget limitations on travel and tedious administrative procedures required for international travel discour-ages international exchange.

Economic impact from technology commercializationEconomic impact from technology commercialization

Social culture impactSocial culture impact

Environmental impactEnvironmental impact

OtherOther

What are the main factors that tend to be used for researcher assessment in your institute (Select all that apply)?

Academic awardsAcademic awards 60%60%

2%2%

Number of patentsNumber of patents 43%43%

Teaching qualityTeaching quality 14%14%

Impact factor of journals in which papers are publishedImpact factor of journals in which papers are published 88%88%

73%73%

Citations of published papersCitations of published papers 43%43%

22%22%

Number of SCI papersNumber of SCI papers 78%78%

8%8%

Teaching quantityTeaching quantity 13%13%

Research funding securedResearch funding secured 58%58%

OtherOther 1%1%

Academic metrics

Social metrics

(N = 999, PI)

FIGURE 7. Chinese researchers reported being assessed primarily by quantitative metrics.


TURNING POINT

An ethical educationScientific misconduct is a global problem. But when stories of miscon-duct by researchers in China make global headlines, the reputation of Chinese science as a whole suffers more than when similar cases happen in other countries. This is clearly unfair, but it makes the need to tackle misconduct all the more important. While two-fifths of the researchers surveyed thought that the level of misconduct in China is about the same as that abroad, a similar proportion felt that misconduct is a more serious problem in China. Scientists are thus torn on the threat misconduct poses to the research environment in China. Although the surveyed scientists were overall positive and believed that miscon-duct will be less prevalent in China in the future, we identified several ways that funders and institutes can help to speed up this process.

First, funders can reduce pressure on researchers to cut corners by adopting more sophisticated approaches to assessment. In many cases a contributing factor to misconduct can be traced back to the assessment system which tends to crudely link financial and career benefits with quantitative metrics such as the number of articles published, particularly in journals above a certain level of impact factor and the amount of grant money secured (see Figure 7). For instance, medical doctors need to publish in order to be promoted. However, Chinese clini-cians, with caseloads that would terrify a western doctor, usually don’t have enough time to devote to research. The pressure to publish a lot risks inviting researchers to cut corners, which leads to other forms of misconduct. How to reorient the assess-ment system to focus on real outcomes of

research is now a hot topic globally. Top institutes such as the Chinese Academy of Science are already taking steps towards a more qualitative evaluation system.

Second, ethics training needs to be improved and the importance of scien-tific ethics needs to be emphasized. The majority of surveyed scientists indicated that they have received training in ethics, and did not express a strong need for more ethics education (see Figure 5). However, the quality of ethics training needs to be examined. As several PIs pointed out, training is typically not systematic or nuanced and glosses over grey areas. Also, given a historical lack of respect for intel-lectual property rights in China, ethics as a concept appear to be viewed differently. Better training that more clearly spells out what the global research community con-siders to be misconduct — and acknowl-edges the grey areas between what is and what isn’t misconduct — would help researchers avoid breaches of accepted international norms. Mentoring from senior PIs will offer students and younger researchers a more personal understand-ing of research ethics.

Third, funders and institutes can dis-courage unethical behaviour by imple-menting more transparent investigation and being more consistent in penaliz-ing those that wilfully violate research ethics. Of the scientists surveyed, 91% felt that Chinese institutes should do more to detect, prevent and punish misconduct. This includes enhanced monitoring, more consistent consequences for those found guilty of misconduct, and transparently handling investigations into alleged mis-conduct. Particularly, in addition to ele-vating the ethical legitimacy of China’s science as a whole, bringing such wrong-doings out into the public sphere will help other scientists to understand the serious-ness of scientific misconduct and provide case study examples for ethics training.

China’s research culture is undergo-ing a major transformation. As we have seen, mentoring and training, human resources, collaboration and scientific ethics will all play important roles in this transition. Turning to the third stage of the research process — sharing science — reveals a new set of opportunities and challenges. ■

“I think the most important thing is the lack of education. Many times students don’t even realize that they did something unethical or illegitimate … For instance, I had such a student in my lab. He used the same graphs and text from a submitted article in another article. He didn’t know that this is not allowed … So we need more training on this to tell them what is copyright, what is plagiarism. They need to be educated about intellectual property.”



TURNING POINT

Quality over quantityThe well-worn phrase ‘publish or perish’ highlights the importance of publication to scientists. As the number of papers coming out of China increases, scientists, driven by assessment policies, are aiming higher — that is, they are targeting high-impact journals. In this transition, funders and institutes need to consider measures that ensure this trend does not hamper the discovery and innovation process overall.

First, funders and institutes should consider more nuanced and individu-al-focused assessment approaches. 87% of the surveyed scientists indicated that they are likely to publish relatively fewer papers each year in future, but target these to higher profile journals. Almost all surveyed PIs indicated that they feel pressure to pursue hot topics, with approximately half identi-fying the lure of publishing in high-impact journals as the most important reason. As

touched on earlier, the focus on high-profile journals and hot topics is driven primarily by the type of metrics used in the researcher assessment process, particularly metrics such as journal impact factor (see Figure 7).

Pressure to produce extremely high- quality output may make researchers reluc-tant to share their data or delay publishing until they can get their paper accepted in a high-profile journal. This is not always a bad approach given the need to increase the reproducibility of some of the most novel findings18. Nor is this unique to China. Nonetheless, the scientific com-munity needs to guard against placing too much emphasis on blockbuster publica-tions, which could hamper the sharing of science and slow positive societal impacts from research.

Second, measures to encourage Open Science in China, in particular the sharing of data, should be considered.

Sharing Science: Making an impact through publication and public engagement

In a narrow sense, sharing science means publishing and communicating research outcomes with other scientists. More broadly it involves engaging with the general public, policy makers and business leaders. As China finds itself sharing the global stage with research giants like the USA and Europe, the broad dissemination of research results is becoming ever more important. Although Chinese scientists are keenly aware of the importance of communication to the wider public, they tend to focus on paper writing and publishing. Meanwhile, engagement in the broader communication of science — even more important as governments strive to encourage research with positive societal impacts — remains low.

18. http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/reproducibility/index.html#perspectives

“It may be good to science development. But it also requires extra efforts and time to sort out all the data for an open platform. Also, this may invite questions that cause distraction. Personally I don’t want to do this unless this becomes mandatory for everyone.”

– PI, age 45-54, Beijing


TURNING POINT

Much of the focus of the Open Science movement to date has been to encourage researchers to make their research papers and similar scholarly works freely availa-ble through various forms of open access publishing. More recently, there have been moves to broaden the concept to include not just research papers but the data on which these scholarly works are based. Increasing numbers of funding agencies around the world now require researchers to make publicly available any data col-lected from research for which they have received funding19. But our survey suggests that Chinese researchers have little enthu-siasm for — or even awareness of — the global trend towards openly sharing data. Most see significant efforts and potential dangers to sharing their data with little or no personal benefit. Their greatest concern is the possibility of peers publishing papers, possibly in high-profile journals, based on their data and without attribution. And some fear that it may invite others to dispute the conclusions they have drawn from their data.

Write, write, writePaper writing is usually the last step in research, but it consumes a consider-able amount of time. The majority of the surveyed PIs reported spending more than one working day per week on paper writing (Figure 8). The difficulties that Chinese scientists tend to experience in this area stem from the substandard scien-tific paper writing skills of students and the unsatisfactory language editing services provided by many commercial companies. These issues need to be addressed by the relevant stakeholders.

First, to enhance students’ writing skills, Chinese institutes should consider providing more training in this area — including support for the future gener-ation of scientists. When writing a paper, it is common for PIs to provide guidance on the paper’s theme and structure to a graduate student who then completes the first draft. However, the quality of these drafts is usually substandard and will need to go back and forth several times between the student and the PI. While some PIs view this exchange as an opportunity to coach

their students, many others just rewrite the paper to save time. As touched on earlier, the English language presents a serious chal-lenge, but even more important is the ability to write logical and convincing papers.

Institutes should consider providing more training for students and young researchers in both English writing and scientific writing generally. But the lack of this critical training in undergradu-ate education in China is also part of the problem. Incorporating essay writing into the basic education system — at the undergraduate and even primary and sec-ondary levels — would greatly improve the scientific writing skills of the next generation of Chinese students and researchers.

Second, to address issues with com-mercial editing services, a global indus-try-wide accreditation system would help to maintain quality standards. There is clearly a great need in China for high-qual-ity language editing services. Home-grown scientists, who are normally less skilled at writing in English, are more inclined to use these services, a reason why home-grown PIs reported spending less time on paper writing than peers with overseas experi-ence. However, PIs’ experiences with these companies, many of them local providers, are not positive. Although around half of the surveyed PIs had used language editing services, only a quarter wanted to continue using them. They found most of the editing services unhelpful for improving the struc-ture of the paper, and were dissatisfied with the level of language polishing provided.

First, giving scientists a definitive measure by which they can feel confident of a provider’s services would help. Second, an authoritative and consistently assessed blacklist of poor quality or unethical service providers, analogous to Jeffrey Beall’s pred-atory OA publisher list20, may be another useful barometer to maintain industry standards.

Invisible barriers?Chinese scientists share the same anxieties with their counterparts around the world in waiting for responses from journals after submitting their papers. Long response times, especially for high-impact journals,

19 http://figshare.com/articles/Global_funders_who_require_data_archiving_as_a_condition_of_grants/128114120 http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

“Language is one barrier in writing. There’s another important issue - the logic of thinking. The latter is even more of a problem … In Western countries, they start writing essays early. It’s integrated in their undergraduate education. Or [they emphasize writing] even since primary schools or secondary schools. But this is lacking from our education system.”

– PI, age 35-44, Beijing

“I feel there is a bias against Chinese authors in publishing. Most editors and reviewers are from western countries. It’s not surprising that they will give more time and trust to an article from a famous (western) institute or lab, and they tend to be harsher to an article from a Chinese lab that they never heard of.”

– PI, age 35-44, Xi’an


TURNING POINT

N = 999, PI

20 - 30%

<20%30 - 50%

>50%

What proportion of your workinghours do you spend on paper

writing and publication?

29%

10%

20%

41%

and ambiguous responses from editors and reviewers are common sources of frus-tration. But some surveyed Chinese PIs also believe that they are treated unfairly by the peer review system of international journals, especially high-impact journals. Editors and reviewers from these journals are perceived as being harsher on papers from Chinese authors based in Chinese institutes. Several journal-specific studies showed a higher rejection rate for papers from China, including many Nature branded journals21.

A study on peer review in the journal Biological Conservation suggests Chinese scientists do face greater difficulties in getting published: papers from China are more likely to get rejected before being sent for review, and are more likely to receive negative reviewer recommendations22. This issue could be due to a relatively lower quality of research submitted to the journal, or less clarity in communication. But some suspect that a bias against Chinese authors is at play. So what can be done to reduce bias and/ or the perception of bias?

Measures to increase the number of Chinese reviewers could be part of the solution. The attitudes of the surveyed PIs towards Chinese reviewers varied. Some preferred Chinese reviewers but others expressed concerns that they might be even harsher on domestic peers due to direct competition. Nevertheless, the number of reviewers from China remains small relative to the growing number of high-pro-file papers published by Chinese scientists. A key problem is that it is often difficult for foreign journals to enlist Chinese scientists as reviewers because they are not familiar with the areas of expertise of potential can-didates. A couple of initiatives could help.

First, Chinese institutes can enhance the visibility of their researchers by, for example, creating more accessible English pages on their institutional websites. In this way, other researchers around the world would be better able to select appro-priate Chinese researchers as referees. This would also improve global collaboration opportunities for Chinese researchers.

Second, because non-Chinese typi-cally find Chinese names difficult to pro-

nounce and remember, promotion of the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) in China will be essential. ORCID is unique to each researcher and allows unambiguous identification of researcher records and contributions for the purposes of peer review selec-tion, as well as ultimately individu-al-focused assessment exercises.

Beyond measures that increase the proportion of Chinese review-ers, bias and/or perception of bias against Chinese researchers must be dealt with by the key implementers of the editorial and peer review process: journals and publishers. In particular, these stakeholders must continue to innovate and experiment with the peer review process in consultation with the broader research community to reduce the potential for bias in the process. Peer review models that are double- (authors and peer reviewers) and triple- (+editors) blinded or that are much more open should be experimented with.

A crisis of confidenceCommunication by the scientific community to wider society is increasingly important. Telling the general public what scientists are doing, persuading taxpayers to support science, engaging with govern-ment and industry entities and inspiring young people to become scientists should be an integral part of the role of science.

When the public begins to question spending on science, the importance of communication is even more evident. Chinese scientists certainly recognize the importance of participation. The research-ers surveyed by NPG almost unanimously agreed that scientists should play a role in communicating to the public. However, only around half had experience of some type of science communication in the past three years. This lack of engagement is com-pounded by the low level of scientific literacy of China’s general populace. A survey con-ducted this year by the China Association for Science and Technology showed that on average 6.2% of Chinese citizens have basic scientific literacy, lagging significantly behind major developed nations23.

21 http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v11/n9/full/nmat3424.html22 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632071500095623 http://education.news.cn/2015-10/01/c_128285591.htm

FIGURE 8. PIs spend a significant amount of time on paper writing and publishing.

“All journalists I met or heard of in China’s science communication media are from an arts education background, which means they have not received any physical or chemistry education after high school ... Research is complicated, involving a series of issues and dependencies. Ignorance of one message could lead to a totally wrong story.” — PI, age 35-44,

Shanghai


TURNING POINT

Clearly, then, there are barriers before Chinese scientists who recognize the importance of communicating their research to the public. Lack of time and a lack of confidence are both to blame. Sci-entists are afraid to engage outside of their community because they fear being judged by peers or misunderstood. Scientists, com-munication professionals and media outlets all play a role here. However there are ways in which science communication can be improved in China.

First, Chinese institutes and funding bodies could incentivize good science communication by tying it to researcher assessment. It is necessary for funders and institutes to foster an environment in which scientists are openly encouraged to engage with other sectors of society — something that could be achieved by giving Chinese researchers more incentive to communicate their research. For instance, a more-nu-anced rather than pure publication driven assessment scheme (as suggested earlier) that gives credit to good science commu-nication activities, as well as collaborations with industries would help. Recognizing and rewarding public engagement would also help to generate greater social impacts of research.

Second, institutes and funders need to find ways to close the gap between attitude and engagement in science com-munication. China’s culture of modesty thwarts interactions between scientists and the media. Many Chinese researchers might worry that media appearances would invite peers to accuse them of seeking limelight. Many Chinese scientists prefer low-key activities such as delivering a speech to a small audience or writing science articles while they go about their usual research. In addition, young researchers may prefer to leave communication with the media to more established senior scientists.

Again, the many administrative hurdles in the Chinese academic culture represent another important factor. Time needed for funding application, writing and publish-ing papers, as well as added administrative roles for some senior scientists, leaves little for science communication which is rele-gated to the sidelines.

Third, media and institutes could maximize their potential for science com-munication by improving the quality of

their science communicators. These pro-fessionals are key in promoting positive interactions between science and media. Just as scientists themselves require the right training to help them communicate, science communicators need effective edu-cational resources so they can stay on top of recent scientific advances.

Establishing centres of excellence for science communication would foster a greater number of skilled science journal-ists and public science communicators. In addition, more professional commu-nicators with backgrounds in science are needed. In many media and institute press offices, professionals interacting with sci-entists typically have public relations or journalism backgrounds, which may con-tribute to scientists’ fears their research may be miscommunicated or exaggerated by the media. As an example, University of Science and Technology of China has the department of Science Communica-tion and Policy which cultivates science communication professionals who have science and engineering backgrounds. But such programs in China are rare, and more are needed.

Fourth, more professional and effec-tive science communication outlets are needed. Currently, the major communi-cation outlets available within the science community are those of institutes and publishers. However, press offices at insti-tutes tend to give low priority to science communication, and many do not have any professional science communicators. Press activities carried out by publishers are normally more comprehensive, but their coverage is still limited and awareness about these activities remains low among Chinese scientists.

Commercial outlets outside the science community also need to be improved. The quality of existing science television programs in China is low, and popular science websites tend to have limited coverage and impact. Commercially suc-cessful platforms similar to the Discovery Channel or National Geographic, which can funnel investments from the gov-ernment, institutions and industry into high-quality, professional content, could give Chinese scientists the necessary motivation to discuss their research on a national and global stage. ■

“(Science communication with public media) This may be all right in the western countries as they respect diversity and individuality. But in China, as a young scientist, this may cause trouble and I don’t want to do that. I’m happy to do that when I become a senior heavyweight in my field. ”

–PI, age 35-44, Shanghai


TURNING POINT

Turning PointConclusion

China realizes that research must be at the heart of its social and economic transformation. At this turning point, the picture of the fundamental components of the research ecosystem — the funding, conducting and sharing of science — is overwhelmingly positive. Nonetheless there are still anomalies and barriers that frustrate researchers and thwart progress towards a culture that recognizes and rewards excellence and innovation. In this paper, China’s scientists — its most important research resource — have allowed us to both define the problems and point to solutions.

The recommendations we have made explicitly address these issues. If they are refined, detailed and implemented by the key stakeholders, they provide the opportunity for China not just to be seen as a research giant but to establish an entrenched culture of innovation that can establish it as a global science and technology leader. In future we believe that Tu Youyou will not be seen as the exception to the rule of how Chinese research is conducted but the trailblazer who sets a standard followed by many others. ■

November 2015Copyright 2015 Nature Publishing Group

Contact us: [email protected]

Shanghai office:42F-10/11, The Center

989 Changle Lu, Shanghai, ChinaT: +86-21-2422 5000

London office:The Campus

4 Crinan StreetLondon N1 9XWUnited Kingdom

T: +44 (0)20 7833 4000

fiffffi ˇ - static.springer.com · including news and comment from Nature, and the leading...

Documents

Transcript of fiffffi ˇ - static.springer.com · including news and comment from Nature, and the leading...