【目的】 了解我国科技期刊编辑和审稿专家对学术不端的态度与认知水平,分析学术不端的主要类型及其产生原因,为相关部门有针对性地识别与防范学术不端提供决策参考。【方法】 基于文献调研和专家咨询确定调查内容和指标,利用问卷星网站分别对编辑和审稿专家进行问卷调查。【结果】 编辑和审稿专家都认为我国科技论文学术不端现象严重,但对学术不端类型的认知有一定的差异,前者认为主要是抄袭剽窃他人研究成果,而后者认为是篡改和捏造数据。学术不端的个人成因主要是职称晋升和科研考核压力,但编辑认为职称晋升是主要动因,而审稿专家认为科研考核压力是主要动因,不过两者都认为缺乏科学公正的学术评价和考核制度以及监督制度的不完善是造成学术不端的主要环境因素。在防范学术不端方面,编辑和审稿专家采取的主要措施有所差异,前者强调编辑加大审查力度,后者强调作者提高自律意识。【结论】 编辑和审稿专家应深入学习学术不端规章制度,严查稿件的学术不端,从而减少甚至杜绝不端稿件的发表。科研管理部门应加强科研诚信建设,出台更加明确合理的学术不端规章制度、科研评价考核机制和职称评审制度,避免以文章论英雄。
[Purposes] This study tries to understand the attitudes and recognition level of Chinese scientific journal editors and peer reviewers on academic misconduct, analyze the main academic misconduct types and their causes, and provide reference for relevant departments to identify and prevent academic misconduct. [Methods] Based on literature research and expert consultation, the contents and indicators of the survey were determined, and the Wenjuanxing website was used to conduct questionnaires for editors and peer reviewers. [Finding] The editors and peer reviewers both consider that the academic misconduct of scientific journals in China is serious, but they have different cognition to academic misconduct types. The editors consider the main type of academic misconduct is plagiarizing other people's research results, while the reviewers consider the tampering or fabricating data is the main type. The individual causes of academic misconduct in China are mainly the promotion of professional titles and the pressure of scientific research assessment, and the editors believe the former is the main reason but the reviewers choose the latter. However, the editors and the reviewers both believe that the main factors of environmental impact are the lack of scientific and fair academic evaluation and assessment system and the imperfect supervision system. For preventing academic misconduct, the main measures taken by editors and reviewers are different. The former emphasize that editors increase the intensity of censorship, while the latter emphasize the author's awareness of self-discipline. [Conclusions] The editors and peer reviewers should strengthen the in-depth study of the rules and regulations of academic misconduct, strictly examine the academic misconduct of the manuscripts, and reduce or even eliminate the publication of misconducted manuscripts. The scientific research management departments should strengthen the construction of good faith in scientific research, promulgate clearer and more rational academic misconduct rules and regulations, scientific research evaluation and assessment mechanism and professional title evaluation system, and avoid writing heroes.