China’s science and technology awards system has been accused of being riddled with loopholes and misconduct, including serious exaggeration of achievements, cultivation of personal connections and even bribery, according to critics within the academic community.
These flaws, though repeatedly addressed by the authorities, are said to remain deeply entrenched, casting a shadow over China’s rapidly advancing innovation sector that is widely regarded as a key pillar in its rivalry with the West.
Last year, the China Association for Science and Technology issued an announcement stating that it was rescinding the honours of five award recipients, including the China Youth Science and Technology Award, revoking their medals and certificates and demanding the return of prize money due to their disciplinary and legal violations or research misconduct.
Among them was Liu Jianni, a professor of palaeontology at Northwest University and recipient of the China Young Women in Science Award in 2014.
But a decade later, she was publicly named for engaging in improper solicitation and other unfair practices during the review of national grant projects.
According to well-placed sources within Chinese academic circles, award misconduct is not uncommon.
A professor of agriculture at a public university in southwestern China, who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, described the awards system as “one of the most corrupt links” in the country’s scientific ecosystem.
He cited as an example a project in his field that won the highest-level provincial science and technology award a few years ago.
According to the whistle-blower, who is familiar with the award-winning team, the research had not been recognised in high-quality academic journals, nor had it achieved the practical applications or generated the hundreds of millions of yuan in economic value it claimed.
“The various participants listed in the award application had no real collaboration over the past two decades – they simply came together to fabricate a story for the purpose of the prize,” he said.
Beijing recently announced its latest directive targeting research misconduct, as part of a broader effort to strengthen research governance and enhance China’s global scientific standing.
On February 11, the Ministry of Science and Technology set out new rules for investigating and handling violations in scientific and technological activities.
These include fraudulently obtaining awards and honorary titles, and exaggerating the academic or technological value of research, as well as the socioeconomic benefits of scientific and technological achievements.
However, some academics have greeted the move with pessimism.
“The problems with applications for science awards are obvious,” said Fan Xiudi, a researcher at the Institute of Higher Education at Tongji University in Shanghai, noting that most prizes now required researchers to submit their own application materials.
Therefore, to boost their chances, some candidates bundle together similar achievements or repackage existing work, turning applications into a cosmetic exercise, according to Fan.
“This kind of ‘secondary packaging’ does nothing to increase the real value of the research. It simply opens the door to unwritten rules and back-room dealings,” she said.
A recent social media post by a doctoral graduate in computer science and technology from a prestigious university in central China, who did not use their real name, revealed how some unethical practices were involved in the award application process.
During graduate studies, the anonymous poster and other team members – more than a dozen PhD candidates and over 30 master’s students – spent three months preparing materials to help their supervisor apply for a national science award.
They exhausted every possible avenue, including spending more than 400,000 yuan (US$58,000) to invite experts in the field to provide feedback and smooth things over.
Despite the extensive effort, he said the project was not a groundbreaking innovation but rather a polished repackaging of outdated research.
The software engineer alleged that award applications typically involved repackaging existing work to align with judging criteria, identifying an angle unlikely to overlap with previous research and “preferably inventing a new concept to emphasise originality”, while in reality presenting “old wine in a new bottle”.
To demonstrate market value, applicants often cite partner companies’ products as examples of application. In practice, he said, such joint research arrangements were frequently nominal and claims of huge economic benefits were often exaggerated.
“Many people include procurement contracts worth tens of millions of yuan in their PowerPoint presentations, but the actual cost of the prototype is much lower. Sometimes, the contracts are completely made up and the transactions never took place, but no one verifies their authenticity,” he added.
His post resonated widely, with many commenters saying it “accurately reflected reality”. However, these claims remain unverified and the engineer has not responded to requests from the South China Morning Post for comment.
An internationally recognised geoscientist, who returned to China several years ago to join a leading university and spoke on condition of anonymity, described China’s awards system as “deeply unhealthy”.
“The process is unscientific, with significant potential for vested interests, leading to distorted behaviour such as overselling and even fabrication,” he said.
Having previously conducted research in Europe and the United States, he noted that many international academic awards were initiated by non-profit foundations or professional societies and primarily served to recognise scientific achievement. Furthermore, candidates were typically nominated by peers rather than opting to apply themselves.
In contrast, many Chinese awards are established by government authorities at various levels. Winning them is often seen by researchers as an official endorsement and a stepping stone to higher titles and honours. Against this backdrop, these are eagerly pursued, even if it means making compromises or attending numerous events to cultivate connections.
The geoscientist said recipients of major official science prizes in China broadly fell into two categories. One group consisted of scientists who had published papers in leading international journals such as Cell, Nature and Science.
Meanwhile, another small group comprised close relatives or team members of academicians – holders of China’s highest scientific title – who were able to leverage personal connections, including with reviewers.
“Evaluators do not assess candidates based on the scarcity, originality and overall strength of their research – they simply count the number of published papers,” he said.
According to him, some scholars who had not conducted substantive research for years were nevertheless able to win major awards because they occupied the apex of the academic hierarchy and wielded significant influence and networks.
For ordinary researchers facing intense competition and lacking powerful backers, such an academic climate “dampens motivation and diverts honours from their fundamental purpose – rewarding excellent research”, he said.
Review systems in China’s academic sector, including award policies, have long been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and transparency, although the authorities have attempted to close loopholes through reforms.
In December 2023, China’s National Science and Technology Awards – overseen by the Ministry of Science and Technology – resumed with updated nomination rules after a two-year suspension. One change required local governments to consult no fewer than five experts in relevant fields before submitting nominations – though observers note that the key is whether the rules will be properly enforced.
However, critics worry that there has been no substantive improvement.
On social media, many early-career researchers complained about the pressure of award applications, the time and energy they consumed and the sense of futility involved.
A Beijing-based academic posted last year that “what she disliked most” about academic life was preparing award submissions – a process that often involved elaborately packaging research results that could not truly be translated into practice.
“It has no real meaning or value – it is simply about conforming to our evaluation system,” she said.
According to Fan at Tongji University, in China’s research assessment system, such awards often represent a scholar’s scientific stature and can even shape their academic future.
“It’s no wonder researchers chase these prizes so eagerly,” she told the SCMP. “The problem is not just individual ethics – it’s how the system is designed.”
Fan suggested that China’s awards system could borrow from the Nobel model, inviting independent experts to review candidates and select winners.
“That would save researchers from wasting time on elaborate applications and help curb malpractice,” she said.
“An academic environment that truly encourages innovation should be created, rather than motivating scientists to pull strings and chase after various honours and talent titles.” -- SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST
