Chinese research: does the quality match the quantity?

My story in yesterday’s FT about the astonishing increase in China’s research output in recent years has stirred up a lively response through emails to me and on discussion groups such as Chinapol.

The most interesting question is whether the soaring output of scientific papers – a 64-fold increase since 1981 and five-fold rise since 1998 – has been matched by an improvement in quality.

Many people with experience of Chinese research seem to doubt it. Some people talk about shoddy, repetitive papers that just scrapes through the peer review process but will never inspire anyone.

A recent article in the journal Nature looked at one adverse effect of the relentless pressure in Chinese universities to publish more papers in “high-impact” journals: an apparent rise in academic fraud and plagiarism, as researchers cut corners and lowered their ethical standards.

The world of research

The science blog is no longer updated but it remains open as an archive.

Clive Cookson, the FT's science editor, picks out the research that everyone should know about, in fields from astronomy to zoology. He also discusses key policy issues, from R&D funding to science education. He'll cover the weird and wonderful, as well as the serious side of science.

The FT’s Science blog: a guide

Comment: To comment, please register with FT.com, which you can do for free here. Please also read our comments policy here.
Contact: You can write to Clive using this email format: firstname.surname@ft.com
Time: UK time is shown on posts.
Follow: Links to the blog's Twitter and RSS feeds are at the top of the page. You can also read the Science blog on your mobile device, by going to www.ft.com/scienceblog

Full list of FT blogs

Featured blogs

Health blog

Dr Margaret McCartney and others discuss the future of healthcare

Tech blog

Dispatches from the FT's San Francisco experts