9.3 The Intellectual Picture source: Written by Pixabay | Zhang Tianqi ●                                                                                                                                                          .

● ●

On July 19 this year, the Ministry of Science and Technology issued the "Notice on Handling Issues concerning the Review of Projects Related to the National Key R&D Program" , the status of the requesting personnel, review experts and related auxiliary personnel was publicized.

The report shows that in July 2021, Sun Beicheng, the current dean of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, applied for the 2021 National Key Research and Development Plan project while working at the Drum Tower Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing University School of Medicine. By making phone calls, sending messages, etc., we collect and analyze information about potential review experts and request and "say hello" to seek consideration for their declared projects.

Among them, Shao Zongze of the Third Institute of Oceanography of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Liu Zhongmin of the Institute of Biology of the Henan Academy of Sciences, Yang Ronghua of Hunan Normal University, and Liu Aizhong of Southwest Forestry University, as review experts for the project, failed to report to the review organizer as required after receiving the request. report and did not actively apply for recusal. Zhao Yuanjin of Southeast University provided assistance to Sun Beicheng in implementing the request, and during the Ministry of Science and Technology's verification of relevant violations, he contacted Sun Beicheng in violation of regulations and disclosed the relevant investigation status, hindering the investigation and verification work.

The Ministry of Science and Technology has terminated the review process of the project. According to relevant regulations, Sun Beicheng has been banned from participating in scientific research activities supported by financial funds for 7 years. Zhao Yuanjin has been banned from participating in such activities for 5 years. Shao Zongze, Liu Zhongmin, Yang Ronghua and Liu Aizhong have been banned from participating in 3 years. Participate during the year. The actions of these personnel have been recorded in the Research Integrity Serious Untrustworthy Conduct Database.[1].

Many of the scientific researchers who were punished this time have high influence in the scientific research community and have many "hats". Among them, Sun Beicheng, Zhao Yuanjin, and Yang Ronghua are national outstanding youths. Sun Beicheng and Yang Ronghua are Yangtze River Scholar Distinguished Professors of the Ministry of Education. Many others are directors of national key laboratories and leading scientific and technological innovation talents of the "Ten Thousand Thousand People Plan". title.

These high-ranking scientific researchers are collectively involved in solicitation behavior and even try to hinder the Ministry of Science and Technology’s investigation, which shows how common the solicitation phenomenon is in scientific research project applications.

As early as 2020, the Ministry of Science and Technology researched and formulated the "Regulations on the Handling of Requests in the Review of Scientific and Technological Activities (Trial)" (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") , which made specific provisions on the penalties for solicitations.

Applicants who implement the requesting behavior shall not undertake or participate in any scientific and technological activities funded by fiscal funds within one to three years (including three years). Applicants who submit applications to multiple persons or who violate the regulations repeatedly will face a ban of three to five years. Review experts who conceal their requests and perform favoritism reviews will also face a ban of three to five years. If serious consequences or adverse effects are caused, the applicant and review experts will face a ban of more than five years or even permanent [2].

However, after the promulgation of this regulation, the phenomenon of solicitation is still prohibited. Even if punitive measures for soliciting requests are clearly stipulated, it still cannot prevent some scientific researchers from taking risks. The case reported by the Ministry of Science and Technology this time occurred in 2021 after the promulgation of the "Regulations". In this year's first batch of academic misconduct reports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China, there were also two cases involving petition issues.

In 2022, Ji Ji, a professor at Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture, organized an online meeting and arranged for relevant personnel to collect information from possible fund project review experts. After the meeting, Ji Ji and others contacted some experts. In 2023, he asked many potential review experts for the key projects he applied for through phone calls, text messages, WeChat, etc.; Yang Lijun of North China Electric Power University applied for the National Natural Science Foundation of China key projects for two consecutive years in 2022 and 2023. During the process, multiple potential review experts were solicited by sending emails and other methods.[3].

In fact, solicitation behavior in scientific research project applications has long become a common phenomenon. A paper published in the "China Science Foundation" journal sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China shows. From 2018 to 2021, the proportion of review experts who have not been "said hello" during project review has always been only more than 20%, while the proportion of review experts who have been greeted exceeds 70%.

Only with the emphasis on requesting issues, the proportion of review experts who were not "said hello" during project review increased from 21.58% to 26.99%, and the combined proportion of occasionally and often "said hello" dropped from 78.42% to 78.42%. 73.01%. At the same time, the proportion of review experts who actively applied for recusal increased from 5.77% in 2018 to 10.06% in 2021.

But overall, "saying hello" during the scientific research review process is still a common unspoken rule. The promulgation of the "Regulations" in 2020 has not significantly curbed the proliferation of "greetings" in project reviews.[4].

In order to eliminate these stubborn diseases, the National Natural Science Foundation of China issued the "National Natural Science Foundation Project Review Request Prohibited Behavior List", which stipulates 24 types of behaviors of scientific researchers, supporting institutions, review experts and Natural Science Foundation staff, and A special rectification campaign was launched in response to review experts being "greeted".

In the past, there was no legal basis for keeping the list of review experts confidential. Now the list of review experts has been included as a work secret. If it is leaked, it will be leaked and can be punished according to law. At the same time, in terms of meeting discipline, any form of "surrounding the meeting" is strictly prohibited; except for the question-and-answer session of the meeting, active communication between the review experts and the respondent personnel is avoided; after the defense, the respondent personnel are not allowed to stay at the residence of the review expert or the meeting location. In terms of selection of review experts, the composition and personnel structure of the review expert group will be optimized, and the proportion of peer reviews will be reasonably set. [5]

Some departments have also proposed more detailed prevention methods. The experts and the respondents will be physically separated, and the experts’ mobile phones will be kept in a centralized manner; the defense project review meeting will be completed within one day, and the review experts will have meals and rest at the venue at noon. Respondents and other interested parties are not allowed to stay or dine at the review expert's residence; they leave quickly after the defense and are not allowed to stay and wait.[6].

According to a report by China Youth Daily in 2023, since the launch of the special rectification work, the Natural Science Foundation of China has received a total of 58 complaints and reports reflecting "pleases" and "greetings", and investigations have been launched in all of them.

In 2024, the Natural Science Foundation of China will launch more new initiatives. Strengthen the confidentiality of voting results of project meeting reviews and no longer display voting information for projects that are recommended not to be funded; optimize the centralized storage measures for communication tools of review experts, and implement closed management of meeting venues; improve the method of announcing review experts. After the completion of the annual review work , at the end of the year, the list of review experts for the annual conference will be announced [7].

Dou Xiankang, director of the Natural Science Foundation of China, said that the special rectification work has indeed achieved results, but continued investment is needed. "This effect cannot be short-lived. We will take more powerful measures [8].""

After the rectification,

"Greetings" are still common

The so-called stubborn disease means that it is difficult to cure it in a short period of time. Although the relevant departments are paying more and more attention to this problem and are constantly taking rectification measures, they want to completely reverse the scientific research environment. There is still a long way to go in promoting the "greeting" culture in China.

A young researcher told Intellectuals that although overall, the evaluation experts' scoring is still based on the quality of the application and scientific research results. Most review experts still have their own principles, but now "it is not excluded to say hello" when applying for various scientific research projects.

The more important the project, the stronger the willingness of people to "say hello" and the more actively they will use it.

If an applicant hesitates during the application stage and just sends out messages and emails to unfamiliar experts, it may be difficult to attract attention. In fact, the network of personal connections has already been established. The young researcher said that usually during the review stage after submitting a scientific research project application, the academic community will organize or participate in academic conferences in order to provide an opportunity for mutual communication and understanding. During the meeting, participants will send each other WeChat messages to deepen each other's impressions and let each other know their names, institutions and research directions.

Since young people usually lack network accumulation, tutors often take them to visit well-known scholars in the industry to provide them with information. They pave the way, which is one of the reasons why scholars are now keen to attend academic conferences. They have laid a network foundation, and sometimes they can be taken care of even without the "operation" of the application stage. "Participate more and talk more about your research, so that everyone can remember it. Staying with you is also to make more friends. If a certain review expert is impressed by you, it does not rule out that he will correspond with someone after receiving your book. "The young researcher said.

The increase in penalties for "saying hello" in recent years has indeed had an effect, but to some extent it has strengthened the importance of relationships. The young researcher said that due to certain risks, the review Experts usually do not provide too much help to people who have no friendship. Most of the help is based on the researchers' existing personal relationships and interest networks. This also means that it is even more important to build good relationships and connections. The committee has strengthened the confidentiality of project meeting reviews and cut off communication between review experts and applicants, which are all positive reform measures. However, these measures have limited effect in the letter review stage before the meeting review. Experts often need to wait several weeks to a month for the letter review. It is not feasible for them to cut off contact and contact with the outside world when reviewing multiple applications internally, and the evaluation score plays a decisive role in whether the project can enter the review process and the outcome.

A paper in the journal "China Science Foundation" shows that, Due to the rapid growth of accepted projects and the tendency of managers to rely on familiar experts, review experts need to complete a large amount of peer review work in a short period of time. The work intensity far exceeds the level of international peers. In 2020 and 2021, review experts were assigned to review more than 15 projects. Correspondence review experts accounted for 60% and 35.21% of the total number of projects respectively. Previously, this proportion did not exceed 10%. For experts who can only review in their spare time, this load is already very high, and the time allocated to each application is limited. [9].

It can be said that the attention of review experts is a scarce resource in project review. In today's increasingly fierce competition for scientific research project applications, even a little preference of review experts is likely to affect the success or failure of the application. It also seems that "saying hello" is more important.

In the review stage, there is still room for relationships to play a role. The young researcher said that the experts in the review field are relatively fixed, such as some academicians, outstanding young people, and academicians in various fields. Most of the outstanding youth will participate.During the review period, their mobile phones will be taken away, but if they see an application from their own unit at the meeting, they will also have a personal preference.

To eliminate "saying hello",

needs to reform the science and technology system

An expert who has participated in the review of scientific research projects many times told "Intellectuals" that the reason why "saying hello" has become a stubborn disease is closely related to the resource allocation mechanism in the scientific research system. For basic research, the current stable funding support ratio is still too low, and scientific researchers can only compete for competitive scientific research projects.

He said that the entire scientific research system now takes projects too seriously, and the snowball effect is too strong. Whether you can get a project, salary, and even the reputation of your entire career are linked to the project. This actually turns the project into a hat, which completely violates the original intention of setting up the scientific research project.

Some researchers do not want to get big projects, but only want to conduct small-scale research driven by curiosity. However, due to insufficient stable funding, they have to apply for competitive projects. If good universities and research institutes could provide enough stable funding to scientific researchers, we might not have to fight so hard.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the competition for scientific research projects is unprecedented. According to statistics from the Natural Science Foundation of China, compared with the same period in 2023, the number of applications for all 14 types of projects centrally accepted in 2024 has increased. A total of 384,564 project applications will be accepted in 2024, an increase of 80,231 applications compared with the same period in 2023, an increase of 26.36%, a significant increase compared with 3.38% in the same period in 2023.

However, the funding rate of projects is declining. The project guide of the Natural Science Foundation of China shows that the funding rate of general projects in 2022 is 17.56%, and the average funding amount is 531,400. In 2023, the funding rate dropped to 16.99%, and the average funding amount dropped to 494,600[11].

In addition, whether you can get a scientific research project is not only related to your personal future, but also to the interests of the unit. The observation of this young scientific researcher is that the unit will go out of its way to help scientific researchers "say hello". This phenomenon is widespread in various units such as universities, companies, and scientific research institutes. For the unit, what is important is not only the funding for scientific research projects, but also the influence brought by these "hats" and the gathering effect on talents.

"There must be competitive projects, but I think they have been done now. If there is a basic guarantee, everyone will be less stressed and people will be calmer." The above-mentioned expert who has participated in the review of scientific research projects many times said, "If wages are unstable and affected by projects, and all kinds of treasures are tied to project applications, it will be easy to take risks."

"For this kind of interest chain ecology that has been formed, if we do not fundamentally reform the scientific research system If the resource allocation mechanism only relies on special rectification and fine-tuning of the review system, then the phenomenon of saying hello may be difficult to eradicate. "Whoever 'says hello' will be caught. There are many 'capable' people who cannot be caught. "

The above-mentioned review experts explained to Intellectuals that there is not no competition for projects and positions abroad. But the problem is that competition for positions such as chair professors abroad is limited to one school, but in China the "hat" is spread across the country. Acceptable. If they want to advance professionally, researchers from various universities and even research institutes must participate in homogeneous competition.

"National hats should really be cancelled. If not, it will always be a problem." , it is better to allocate this fund directly to each school to support its own projects and talent training, thereby returning to the small peer review mechanism within the school.

From the perspective of the entire scientific research system, this review expert believes that China’s scientific research. The system is still eager for quick success, and the overall support for basic research is not enough. In addition, the resource allocation mechanism has not been straightened out, and the boundaries between stability and competitive funding should be clearly defined.Most researchers are now competing for limited competitive funding, leading to an unsettling mentality among the entire research community.

"Without some fundamental changes in the scientific research system, these problems cannot be solved." The professor said, "There are still many problems in the entire scientific research system that have not been straightened out. Who should be blamed for the 'greeting' problem? I think the least The ones to blame are ordinary scientific researchers.”

Reference: (swipe up and down to browse)