Discussion keeps the world turning.
This is Roundtable.
You're listening to Roundtable with myself, He Yang.
I'm joined by Yuxun and Li Yi in the studio.
Coming up, this news story is rocking the boat in the academic world where titles have often been valued above effort.
A Chinese Journal says, when publishing academic research, stop handing your supervisors the first author spot if they didn't earn it.
Is this a long overdue wake up call for ethical publishing or a challenge to traditional academic values?
And we've all done it, dropped that one phrase in an email thinking it's really polite.
But spoiler alert, it's totally useless.
It sounds harmless, but does it actually get the job done?
Let's spill the tea on which email phrase you should avoid at all costs.
Our podcast listeners can find us at Roundtable China on Apple Podcast. Now let's move on to the next topic discussion today.
Now let's dive into a controversial topic sparking debates in Chinese academia.
Should postgraduate students avoid listing their tutors as first authors unless they've made a significant contribution?
This suggestion from Tianfu New Theory or Tianfu Xinlun, an academic journal based in Sichuan province, S .W.
China, challenges a common academic tradition in China.
The journal's new advice advocates for students to claim the first author spot when they deserve it, rather than automatically giving it to their supervisor.
But is this a move, an ethical push, or a clash with entrenched academic customs?
What happened with this publication journal and it has really sent shockwaves in the academic world!
Yes, this Chinese academic journal has actually sparked widespread discussion in academic community after posting this suggestion on its submission page.
So they suggested that graduate students should not list their supervisors as the first author unless the supervisor has made a substantive contribution to the paper, and this recommendation goes against some common practices here in China actually.
In short, why this is that unusual and can spark so much discussion is because it boldly challenges the implicit some hidden rules in Chinese academia, because in China tutor first authorship is often seen as a form of respect, a way to boost the paper's credibility actually and even a requirement from some institutions.
Some journals upon receiving academic manuscripts for processing stipulate that postgraduate students are not allowed to be listed as first author and some others do not even allow the students to publish the paper unless their supervisor's name is added in the author list and you know what's being suggested by this journal is therefore going against some as I said common practices of submitting academic paper for publication.
Why do students traditionally list their supervisor as the first author which seems to be sort of the custom that everybody follows the rule?
I think in reality a lot of people will just do this because first of all it can be considered as a form of traditional respect to their teachers and tutors, and especially for doctoral study, I know that young people just call their tutors at their boss.
So it's a pretty complicated relation between the young people and their professors.
Sorry to stop you for one second.
Could you elaborate a little bit?
It's almost very transactional of a relationship between the boss and the employee, so the professor who's leading the research project, or the supervisor of these students.
And it's an interesting dynamic, isn't it?
Yeah. I think it's because a lot of professors and tutors they have their really abundant resources, maybe social connections and connections to journals, publication institutions as well who can really provide this really substantial assistance to their students and who just need this sort of resources and connections and this social networking to help them to boost their ladder in academia sector.
So that's why it's more like an employment relation especially when you are pursuing for a doctorate study as well.
And also sometimes if not always the student kind of depends on the good word of the professor to graduate or not to get the degree and that's really the holy grail for these postgraduate students at that stage in life.
And you've put in so many years of your life to get that piece of paper and you really need it and this is connected to publish or perish and that's you know also why these papers, publishing papers are so important.
Exactly so that's why you would see these people will just...
actually they're willing to list their tutors as the first author of their study because it can really bring real benefits to them because maybe when you list your tutors who really enjoy high repetition in this industry.
It can just boost the chances of your study being published, especially on major journals, which is really, really sought after in this professional sector because it can be closely linked to their also for practical benefits.
And also, when you list, I mean, actually, when your tutor is willing to be listed as the first author of your study, it also sends out this signal that this study is being reviewed and being checked by a professor enjoying high reputation in the industry.
So, that also, you know, bring benefit to the students as well.
So you explain pretty much why this has become the norm in a way.
And why is that now being challenged?
And why are folks from the academic circles as well as common, everyday people who read the news say that they're kind of putting their hands together and say, oh, this is a very welcome change if it does pan out?
I think it is quite understandable.
On one hand, this can be understood as the paper or the study receiving an endorsement from the supervisor or a more prestigious figure in the academic community.
But on the other hand, it may be somewhat unfair to the original author, the graduate student, as their contributions might not be fully recognized.
And another point I would like to mention is that this is quite a global situation.
Um, this is not just practiced in China, but in the west as well.
I heard from one of our colleagues who had worked in academic publishing houses for two years.
In some cases, supervisors are listed as first author or so -called corresponding author, upon manuscript submission because they are more experienced in coordinating the research process and have a better understanding of what's written or what's in this manuscript by his students.
And the supervisors are therefore more capable of engaging in these conversations with the journal editor or the publishing houses and peer reviewers to help getting the students' manuscripts successfully published.
But the idea of corresponding author is it's not that commonly specified by all of the Chinese academic journals.
Well, the thing is—sorry to quickly just jump in—with the corresponding author, that's Tungshun Zuozhou in Chinese, it makes a lot of sense to give it to the prestigious renowned professor who is doing all this elision work, or contacting the publishing house or journals or whatnot because you are doing the corresponding work and it is fitting for that title.
But for first author, isn't it supposed to be reserved for the person who's actually doing the research, who actually penned the paper?
And yes, I mean this phenomenon that we're talking about here isn't necessarily only happening in China but to be this prevalence it might not be the case elsewhere yes when you look at Oxford academic and authorship qualification requires the individual to have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content so that's the clarified guideline according to Oxford and old authors should be involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content and must have read and proved the final version of the manuscript.
So in reality, the supervisors don't always meet the above standards.
Although Oxford also specifies that individuals who merely participated in the acquisition of funding, collection of data or general supervision of a research group does not justify authorship and should be included in the acknowledgement.
So clearly, authorship is not just a minor formality, it's actually a matter of principle and should be treated with the seriousness it deserves.
But then in reality, as Yuxin and Huayoung mentioned, it has become a global phenomenon in academia that authorship is sort of abused in reality.
Kevin Strange is a researcher who has worked in the medicine sector and he's from the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, it's one of the leading academic medical institutions in the US.
And according to him, who is a person who has more than 30 years of publishing articles in medical profession sector, the authorship has actually become a multi -billion -dollar industry since World War II because of the increasing scientific research funding.
So, a lot of researchers just need to acquire this authorship to strive for government funding in their sectors.
and also of course the publications even became the main currency for career advancement.
Well traditionally traditionally, as we said, authorship should be, you know, be given to people who have actually made contribution to this study or research. However, according to Kevin he also knows that there has been this pressing concern over a phenomenon called promiscuous authorship.
I think it's exactly what we are talking about today.
Meaning that you can just naming individuals as authors who make no intellectually meaningful contribution only because of their social status and reputation and social connections, and according to Kevin, this could lead to scientific found fraud because it can just make real scientific founding goes to group person who actually make no responsibility or contribution to the study which is actually vital for the sector so this could be a real issue I guess.
So does improper authorship undermine academic integrity because this is essentially what we're talking about here?
You know, when we're talking about these kind of things, experts in academia express that this widespread requirement actually for supervisors to be listed as co -authors or even as the first author on journal articles is both a real phenomenon and a problem that needs addressing and more often than not, it reflects a sense of helplessness shared by journal supervisors and also graduate students alike.
Some of the reasons are beneficial for students, some are quite limiting for students when they are not getting enough credit and recognition through their study results.
Definitely. You make a really good point on that sense, but also one thought just sort of spurred into my mind just now.
It seems like, in the academic circle, everybody knows this, so maybe when people are reviewing the authors, and for some of these publications they only allow for in fact when it's probably a bigger team who could be researching and contributing to the publication of one journal.
And then people will know, okay, if even if first author is listed as let's say Lee Yi, the most renowned professor in this particular field, but she's busy and apparently she's published five articles, journals in one month or something like that, then I guess I'll at the the second author and who's listed after that and and I'll probably make the educated guess what's really happening but that's not making an excuse to making this the defect a default practice in academic circles so how does Tan -Fu new theory suggestion challenge the unspoken rules of academia do you think this move has significant
meaning for young scholars and future academic publishing in this country?
I think definitely yes, because in that case, you just mentioned Huiyang.
If it has already become a unspoken rule in academia, then it might just hurt the passion of a lot of young yet talented scholars who maybe not really enjoying reputation in their circle, however they can be really talented.
However, just due to this unspoken rule, they can't really become the first author or the of the major contributor being acknowledged by the industry, which is actually a pity and also a hurdle for their passion as well.
So in this case, this new policy or new rule coming from this rather small publication is institution actually can be quite encouraging for a lot of young scholars.
And I believe it's also the major purpose of this institution as well, because when look at the data released by this Tianfu New Theory at the end of 2024, over 74 percent of their first authors that year were young scholars under the age of 40.
And nearly 23 percent held Associate's Senior titles were lower.
And notably nearly 53 percent of first authors were Ph .D., and nearly 60 % were master's degree.
6 %? 6%, yes. So in this case, I believe the Tianfu New Theory publication is aimed at encouraging young scholars who are determined to make some contribution to their study yet might find extremely challenging to publish their articles without the help of their tutors or senior researchers at other public institutions.
At least yeah it is giving as we say young people an idea of telling them this is a good chance for current masters and doctoral students to break through from the tradition and begin respecting their own intellectual contributions and young authors can take this chance to learn to take personal responsibility for their work.
At least we're seeing really positive change potentially happen in this.
I didn't really want to use the word industry because we're talking about academic circles, but it seems like as the way it runs, it might bare resemblance to how an industry works.
And as we were chatting about this before we turned on the mic.
It sort of reminded me of years ago when I did an interview with a very senior person in a particular industry that has nothing to do with academia.
And he was approaching retirement age.
And I was a young person.
And we chatted about who gets credit for work, stuff like that at the end of the interview.
And then you know we turned off the mic and the camera already and he was he said something I was very young you know it was like hey young young person You know what?
regardless of the industry for the first 20 years of your career you are gay parents what Jayi?
you are Threading needling a beautiful outfit for someone else.
And he was trying to comfort me in that you shouldn't even think about asking for the credit cause the spotlight is not yours.
You are helping others, more influential people in that sector to make a name, and then, you are there just for the bread crumbs cause that's all is deserving of you.
The whole 20 years?
Pretty long. Very long and I, as a young person at the time, I kind of just accepted it.
That's not encouraging at all.
I don't think so at all.
So here, I'm putting my foot down and I say, well done young people out there and young scholars out there and also this Tien -Fu new theory for making the point, for correcting what has been wrong.
And it became some kind of rule.
But you know what? Rules, especially bad rules are meant to be broken one day.
And I hope that's what we're seeing here.
Coming up next, do you know what's the most useless English phrase to use in an email?
It's like the email version of small talk.
No one really wants it but somehow, it keeps sneaking in.
Time to call it out and finally, let go.
Stay tuned. Looking for passion?
How about fiery debate?
Wanna hear about current events in China from different perspectives?
Then tune in to Roundtable where East meets West and understanding is the goal.
You're listening to Roundtable with myself, He Yang.
I'm joined by Yi - Olun and Li Yi in the studio.
You ever stare at a work email in English for like 10 minutes or so typing something backspace it then finally hit send with a line that feels safe?
Yeah it turns out that one harmless sentence that some or let's say many of us drop in English emails.
Experts say it's literally the most useless thing you can ever write it doesn't help your case it doesn't speed things up and it low key gives off I don't really know how to ask for what I need energy even when you're on top of your game and yet somehow it keeps surviving in inbox - inboxes everywhere.
So what is this phrase and why are we still using it in 2025?
I think it's really interesting because a lot of I would say a lot of phrases we have been using in professional emails are considered to use this right now.
For example, one phrase is just checking in.
I'm not really sure...
Just checking in? Yeah, just checking in.
I'm not really sure if you have used this in your email, but according to etiquette expert Jenny Drazen, she criticizes this email or this just checking in phrase and emails because it's really ineffective and passive aggressive.
That's according to her and she thinks this phrase lacks clarity as well and does little to do with moving discussions or attacks forward. So instead, she advises being direct and specific in communication, such as actually asking about the status of a particular action item.
And she thinks clarity is essential for achieving results without sounding robotic or harsh.
And then in a recent related trend, some professionals are adopting a more direct approach in their email communications.
For example someone is using blunt language in his out -of -office replies saying something like, I'm out of the office having way more fun than communicating with you.
I don't really think people receiving this email are you know pleasant to work with this guy afterwards.
But this shift really reflects a broader movement towards more straightforward communication especially in workplace emails as well and meantime there's also a trend you know some women female professions they were just a using more masculine tone when they're communicating with others in their email aiming for career advancement they were just might using less pleasing tone and adopting a no nonsense approach however expert also argue that did this could to actually facilitate gender stereotypes as well.
Maybe I haven't written enough emails in English or I haven't communicated with people in emails.
But I always thought this was just that, you know, standard way people write emails, you know, phrases like I am writing to confirm.
Make you sound professional and show that you value the conversation, right?
Including the format of the email, the opening, greeting, the closing remarks and so on.
So is this trend now to just get straight to the point or maybe Chinese people just get so used to instant messages that we don't use that kind of format.
Work emails. Yeah, well, it's really interesting, I think, you're approaching this from an English, a second language angle or as a native speaker, and as a native speaker, they might think that, oh, this sounds a bit too indirect.
And that brings us to the end of today's show.
Have a great day. We'll see you next time.
