Commentary
Claims that China is leading in research output are misleading, as state-owned universities are inflating statistics through the use of fabricated, plagiarized research and coerced citations.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) indication that China now leads in
90 percent of critical tech research stems from a study that evaluated research papers across 64 technology categories, primarily focusing on the number of citations. However, this claim is problematic for several reasons.
First, it emphasizes
quantity over quality, failing to account for the prevalence of domestic citation loops in China and the significant institutional pressures placed on Chinese students and researchers to publish multiple papers and cite each other’s work. These factors, combined with the narrow reliance on citation counts, obscure the true indicators of leadership in critical technologies—namely, innovation, practical application, and global influence—none of which can be fully captured by citation metrics alone.
Chinese researchers prioritize the quantity of published papers over their quality. In 2015, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) launched a plan to increase China’s presence in academic publishing by setting
high publication quotas. This push led to the rise of so-called
paper mills, which produced fabricated research for publication in national journals. As a result, questionable “science papers” started appearing in Chinese journals and even being published abroad, as young doctors and scientists were pressured to meet their publication quotas for career advancement. Universities require graduate students to produce multiple papers to graduate, while professors are incentivized with cash rewards to publish, regardless of the quality of the work.
This emphasis on quantity has led to widespread issues, including plagiarism, duplicate research, and even fabricated studies. As a result, approximately 46 percent of retracted papers originate from CCP-affiliated universities, according to a database of some 50,000 retracted studies compiled by U.S. nonprofit Crossref and Retraction Watch, a blog. In addition to fraudulent research, many Chinese papers have been retracted for
violating ethical standards and failing to
obtain proper consent from research subjects.
Producing questionable papers also hinders China’s ability to establish prestigious journals. One of the key indicators of a paper’s quality is the journal’s reputation in which it is published. Many Chinese papers are published in domestic journals, and China continues to struggle
with developing top-tier journals that are recognized globally, particularly those published in English.
The prevalence of plagiarism and the publication of low-quality research undermines the credibility of Chinese journals, making it difficult for them to gain international prestige. This lack of high-ranking journals, in turn, affects the global impact and recognition of Chinese research. Additionally, it contributes to the lower citation rates of Chinese papers by academics in other countries, as these journals’ perceived quality and reliability are questioned. This cycle limits China’s ability to establish itself as a leader in academic publishing on the global stage.
Citations are an important quality metric as they indicate that others in the field respect the paper enough to cite it. However, only
half of the citations for Chinese papers come from American sources. There are two key reasons for this phenomenon. First, American academics often perceive Chinese papers as being of lower quality. Second, in addition to instructing their students to cite each other’s work, Chinese professors are also encouraged to prioritize citing Chinese papers over American ones. Language barriers also contribute to this, as many papers published in China are in Mandarin, making them less accessible to international scholars. At the same time, Chinese students are discouraged from citing papers published in English, which drives them to cite more Chinese papers, further inflating the citation count of Chinese research.
CCP support plays a significant role in shaping research output and citation practices in China. Government policies and funding heavily influence which research areas receive the most attention and how frequently Chinese papers are cited. The CCP encourages scholars to prioritize citing Chinese papers and promote national research over international collaboration. However, this support also imposes strict limitations on what Chinese scholars can study. Research that criticizes Beijing or explores sensitive topics, such as the loss of language and culture among ethnic minorities in CCP boarding schools, is off-limits.
Because of these restrictions, Chinese scholars are also discouraged from citing U.S. papers or other international research on these subjects. This narrowing of focus not only limits the scope of their work but also reduces opportunities for cross-cultural academic exchange, leading to a more insular academic environment within China. Investing so much energy into producing a high volume of questionable papers is draining China’s innovative capacity.
In practical terms, transitioning academic research into real-world applications differs significantly between the West and China. In the West, where originality is highly valued, successful products and applications often stem from researchers developing entirely new ideas and concepts. The emphasis on original research drives innovation, leading to groundbreaking technologies and applications. In contrast, in China, where copying and incremental improvements on existing technology are more common, the most successful products and applications tend to be adaptations or enhancements of Western technology. This approach, while effective in rapidly scaling and improving existing innovations, often limits the development of truly original technologies.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
