The Impact of False Investigators on Grant Funding

Research Misconduct Investigations in China's Science Funding System

As stewards of public money, government funding agencies have the obligation and responsibility to uphold the integrity of funded research. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies examining research-related misconduct, a majority of these studies focus on retracted publications. How agencies spot funding-relevant wrongdoing and what sanctions the offenders face remain largely unexplored. This is particularly true for public funding agencies in emerging science powers. To amend this oversight, we retrieved and analyzed all publicized investigation results from China's largest basic research funding agency over the period from 2005 to 2021. Our findings reveal that both the "police patrol" and "fire alarm" approaches are used to identify misconduct and deter funding-related fraud in China. The principal triggers for investigations are journal article retractions, whistleblowing, and plagiarism detection software. Among the six funding-related misconduct types publicized and punished, the top three are: (1) fraudulent papers, (2) information fabrication and/or falsification in the research proposal, and (3) proposal plagiarism. The most common administrative sanctions are debarment and reclamation of grants. This article argues that more systematic research and cooperation among stakeholders is needed to cultivate research integrity in emerging science powers like China. Specific training and education should be provided for young scientists to help them avoid the pitfall of academic misconduct.

How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects

Scientists and funding bodies are interdependent actors involved in an ongoing two-way signalling interaction; however, we lack insight on the social mechanisms underpinning this interaction. To address this issue, we examine how successfully funded scientists interpret and address criteria set by the funding body to maximise their chances of funding success. We also consider the possible adverse side effects that can arise from scientists' competitive efforts to address these criteria. Our findings identify a portfolio of funding criteria-research feasibility, research alignment and team credentials-that scientists address when preparing grant applications. Effectively addressing these criteria enhances the prospects of funding success and value creation. However, we also find that scientists can over-address funding criteria, which is counterproductive and yields undesirable side effects. Our research therefore makes an important distinction between the possibilities for value creation and the value creation frictions that can unintentionally arise based on how grant-submitting scientists interpret and address the criteria signalled by the funding body. Our research has implications for policymakers, funding bodies and scientists which we also discuss.