We need to distinguish between fake research (lying) and marginal paper factory behaviour (research that seemingly fails to move the knowledge needle definitively). Publication mania is certainly a problem in China and everywhere else in the world. But it's hard to tell from this post whether the difference in complaints about the mania coming from China and coming from the rich countries is one of degree or kind. Furthermore, making originality / novelty THE standard for quality research seems like not only goalpost shifting but also a bad argument. In fact, novelty has been claimed as a possible mechanism underlying fake research by one philosopher, see 👉🏾 youtube.com/watch?v=mNs1sumAT68
To a certain extent this problem is intractable, a result of the incommensurability between academic freedom and modern society's insistence on measurement of performance through metrics (which is in many cases useful). The seriousness with which it manifests in China seems to be simply a function of China's much greater scale; there are many more professors and PhD students in China, so competition is much more fierce, leading to an increase in underhanded methods to game metrics.
But I actually have a partial solution to it, to extract the "signal from the noise", identify the very best scholars, and shelter them from the tyranny of these metrics so that they can carry out high quality basic research. I call it the All Souls Model, after All Souls College at the University of Oxford. All Soul's is unique in Oxford having no students, only academics, and admitting those academics through what is called "the hardest exam in the world", a written essay on a single word, extremely vague prompt (e.g. "water", "harmony") that tests academics' creativity. If they are successful they are free to pursue whatever research they see fit, without publication or teaching obligations. The "All Soul's" model could seek to replicate this by creating ultra-elite research institutions within top universities' with admission decided by a similar written exam, open to anyone with a PhD and with submissions totally anonymised to prevent people with connections gaming the system. Successful applicants could be asked to develop a research proposal to ensure that they are actually going to be engaged in useful basic research, but other than that I think selecting for truly brilliant individuals in this way would ensure the creation of groups of researchers dedicated to genuinely pushing science forward, rather than worrying about academic prestige or publication metrics.
There is a lot of data manipulation and outright fraud in American universities, too. Every organization should know that if you judge people by a metric, then they will optimize that metric. At one time, we trusted university leadership to make judgments, but they are absolutely distrusted now, so some measure has to be chosen. I agree that this system selects against innovation. Keynes published little in his lifetime, but his two books were revolutionary. In literature, Tolkien published few "academic" papers, choosing to focus on real substance. Such people would not be welcome in academia today.
We need to distinguish between fake research (lying) and marginal paper factory behaviour (research that seemingly fails to move the knowledge needle definitively). Publication mania is certainly a problem in China and everywhere else in the world. But it's hard to tell from this post whether the difference in complaints about the mania coming from China and coming from the rich countries is one of degree or kind. Furthermore, making originality / novelty THE standard for quality research seems like not only goalpost shifting but also a bad argument. In fact, novelty has been claimed as a possible mechanism underlying fake research by one philosopher, see 👉🏾 youtube.com/watch?v=mNs1sumAT68
To a certain extent this problem is intractable, a result of the incommensurability between academic freedom and modern society's insistence on measurement of performance through metrics (which is in many cases useful). The seriousness with which it manifests in China seems to be simply a function of China's much greater scale; there are many more professors and PhD students in China, so competition is much more fierce, leading to an increase in underhanded methods to game metrics.
But I actually have a partial solution to it, to extract the "signal from the noise", identify the very best scholars, and shelter them from the tyranny of these metrics so that they can carry out high quality basic research. I call it the All Souls Model, after All Souls College at the University of Oxford. All Soul's is unique in Oxford having no students, only academics, and admitting those academics through what is called "the hardest exam in the world", a written essay on a single word, extremely vague prompt (e.g. "water", "harmony") that tests academics' creativity. If they are successful they are free to pursue whatever research they see fit, without publication or teaching obligations. The "All Soul's" model could seek to replicate this by creating ultra-elite research institutions within top universities' with admission decided by a similar written exam, open to anyone with a PhD and with submissions totally anonymised to prevent people with connections gaming the system. Successful applicants could be asked to develop a research proposal to ensure that they are actually going to be engaged in useful basic research, but other than that I think selecting for truly brilliant individuals in this way would ensure the creation of groups of researchers dedicated to genuinely pushing science forward, rather than worrying about academic prestige or publication metrics.
There is a lot of data manipulation and outright fraud in American universities, too. Every organization should know that if you judge people by a metric, then they will optimize that metric. At one time, we trusted university leadership to make judgments, but they are absolutely distrusted now, so some measure has to be chosen. I agree that this system selects against innovation. Keynes published little in his lifetime, but his two books were revolutionary. In literature, Tolkien published few "academic" papers, choosing to focus on real substance. Such people would not be welcome in academia today.