Academic Misconduct Responsibilities: An Empirical Comparison Using 35 Chinese Cases as a Foundation

Wenze Cao, Zhaoxun Cao, Ramalinggam Rajamanickam, Nur Khalidah Dahlan

Abstract


This article undertakes a comprehensive exploration of academic misconduct by employing a robust comparative and empirical approach. It meticulously examines 35 representative cases from China, delving into the diverse manifestations of academic misconduct such as fund project evaluation interference, fraud, paper trading, improper authorship, and multiple submissions. Through in-depth legal analysis, it not only investigates the infringements on intellectual property rights and public legal interests but also proposes the application of strict liability in tort law. To enhance the regulatory framework, the article advocates for clearer criminalization criteria for severe academic misconduct. It further extends the discussion to incorporate the roles of academic institutions, the challenges in enforcement, and a more expansive legal framework. By drawing on international experiences and best practices, it formulates comprehensive and actionable suggestions for reforming China's academic misconduct regulations, aiming to address this issue effectively on both national and international levels.


Keywords


Academic Misconduct; Comparative Analysis; Empirical Evidence; Criminalization Criteria; Tort Law



DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v11i1.5696

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Hasanuddin Law Review (ISSN Online: 2442-9899 | ISSN Print: 2442-9880) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Preserved in LOCKSS, based at Stanford University Libraries, United Kingdom, through PKP Private LOCKSS Network program.
 
Indexing and Abstracting:
 
  
 
View full indexing services.