9月19日，中国科协发布关于撤销周新源等5人所获奖励的公告，收回5人所获奖章、证书、奖金。其中 刘建妮所获中国青年女科学家奖被撤销。19日18时许，南都N视频记者查询发现，刘建妮获得该奖的时 间为2014年，目前其所在高校仍有祝贺其获奖的宣传文章。 通报称，经查，刘建妮在2021年重点项目通讯评审过程中通过邮件等方式向多位可能的专家请托，在重 点项目答辩前打探评审专家信息并向多位专家请托，向其中两位评审专家全成、程海发送希望答辩时对 方提的问题，违规获取会议评审投票结果后又向他人泄露评审结果；在2021年面青地项目会议评审过程 中，泄露自己的评审专家身份、为项目申请人提供帮助并泄露评审信息。刘建妮应对上述问题负责。 经自然科学基金委监督委员会六届三次会议审议，由自然科学基金委2024年第6次委务会议审定，决定 依据《国家自然科学基金项目科研不端行为调查处理办法》第四十四条第一项、第二项和第五十条第一 项，撤销刘建妮国家自然科学基金项目"滇东寒武纪生物演化、化石埋藏与古环境重建探索"（批准号 42130206），追回已拨资金，取消刘建妮国家自然科学基金项目申请和参与申请资格3年（2024年4月9 日至2027年 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the increasing prevalence of academic misconduct in Chinese medical institutions, particularly involving the buying and selling of research data, which has led to significant concerns regarding the integrity of scientific research in the healthcare sector [1][2][3]. Group 1: Academic Misconduct Cases - The National Natural Science Foundation of China recently reported 21 cases of academic misconduct, with several involving the sale of experimental research data, primarily occurring in hospitals and medical schools [1]. - A notable case involved a urology department head at a prestigious hospital who was found to have engaged in data trading related to a study on prostate cancer cell proliferation [1]. - The foundation has established a reporting channel for academic misconduct, and there has been increased public awareness and scrutiny of "problematic papers" in hospitals [1]. Group 2: Issues in Research and Publication - A recent incident at Shandong University Qilu Hospital revealed a paper claiming to address "male uterine fibroid patients," which prompted an investigation and subsequent disciplinary action against the involved nurse [2]. - The journal "Chinese Medical Guidelines" acknowledged flaws in its review process that allowed for the publication of fraudulent papers, leading to the dismissal of an editor and the implementation of corrective measures [2]. - Experts attribute the rise of "paper mills" to the rigid evaluation standards and inadequate reward systems in hospitals, where some doctors resort to academic misconduct to meet publication demands [2][3]. Group 3: Quality of Research Output - Despite the high volume of papers published by Chinese doctors annually, the number of high-quality, impactful studies remains low, resulting in wasted national research funding [4]. - Some hospitals are beginning to incorporate public education as a performance metric, providing alternative pathways for career advancement beyond traditional publication metrics [4]. - The emergence of "popular science" doctors on social media platforms is seen as a double-edged sword, with some viewing it as a means to enhance public health awareness, while others criticize it as a distraction from clinical and research responsibilities [4]. Group 4: Institutional Perspectives - While some hospitals encourage doctors to engage in public education, emphasizing its potential benefits for both personal and institutional growth, others maintain that scientific research should remain the primary focus, with public outreach not substituting for academic publications [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the prevalence of academic misconduct in Chinese hospitals, particularly in the context of research papers, and discusses the shift towards valuing public education and outreach as part of the evaluation criteria for medical professionals [1][4]. Group 1: Academic Misconduct - The National Natural Science Foundation of China reported 21 cases of research misconduct, including data trading, primarily occurring in hospitals and medical schools [1][3]. - A notable case involved a urology department head at a prestigious hospital, whose paper on prostate cancer cell proliferation was flagged for data trading [1]. - The foundation has consistently addressed academic misconduct, with hospitals being significant sources of problematic papers [1][4]. Group 2: Institutional Responses - Shandong University Qilu Hospital responded to public complaints about a paper that incorrectly included male patients with uterine fibroids, leading to disciplinary actions against the involved nurse [3]. - The journal "Chinese Medical Guide" acknowledged flaws in its review process that allowed for the publication of fraudulent papers and has since taken corrective measures [3]. Group 3: Shift in Evaluation Criteria - Experts suggest that the rise of "paper factories" is linked to rigid evaluation standards in hospitals, where some doctors resort to misconduct to meet publication requirements [4]. - There is a growing trend among hospitals to incorporate public education as a metric for evaluating doctors, aiming to alleviate the "paper-only" assessment culture [1][4]. - Some hospitals are now promoting "science popularization" as a means for doctors to enhance their careers, which can also attract more patients [5]. Group 4: Public Engagement and Perception - The emergence of "science popularization" influencers among doctors is seen as a double-edged sword, with some viewing it as a way to improve public health awareness while others criticize it as a distraction from clinical and research responsibilities [5]. - Private hospitals are increasingly favoring "popular science" doctors for their ability to attract patient traffic, indicating a shift in hiring practices [5]. - However, some institutions maintain that traditional research output remains the primary focus, emphasizing the importance of publishing in recognized academic journals over social media platforms [5].

Core Points - The National Natural Science Foundation of China has taken action against over 20 scholars for scientific misconduct, issuing public criticism [1] - Specific cases include He Juliang from a university in Guangxi, who was penalized for buying and selling experimental research data and using others' names without consent, resulting in the revocation of his funding project and a three-year ban on applying for funding [1] - Other scholars and institutions involved have also faced corresponding penalties for various types of scientific misconduct [1]