Abstract

Fleming covered foreign researchers being bullied in the West [1]. However, in China, locals experience worse bullying. China needs increased research diversity without sacrificing parity. Most academics are selected from male high-ranking directors or presidents of institutions. Some directors enjoy long-term tenures but treat their colleagues like servants. They push researchers to write proposals but claim to be first and/or corresponding authors or main contributors. Quantifying contributions in line with Stephen Kosslyn rule alongside block-chain would increase Chinese research parity; otherwise, tricky statistics are needed (e.g., laureate Tu Youyou’s artemisinin contributions).

More other cases may exist. For instance, I experienced bullying at the first clinical college of Harbin Medical University but not Harvard or Toronto University as faculty. Department director Zhang made promises regarding students, salaries, etc. but never fully delivered. Despite knowing little English, he insisted on having senior authorship and abused Vice-Director M for following authorship guidelines. After M left, zhang left her position vacant and pressured us to boycott her conference in Shenzhen. Zhang demanded to appoint his friends to students’ postgraduate research panel instead of leading specialists. He was buzzed for having sexually harassed female students inside university and hospital for a while but he was even proud that students feared him. Nobody reported him for fearing retribution.

Lastly, some medical doctors “write” dozens of papers monthly despite hectic schedules. Most of China’s SCI retractions are mainly from hospitals. Despite new regulations, many cases remain unresolved and barely achieve parity. Therefore, with more disparity and less diversity and originality, China risks having fewer laureates.