Controversy Over China's Science Prize-Winning Network Project
Early this year, the National Natural Science Award in China went to a man named Zhang Yaoxue and his team. However, claims have arisen that his team copied work from a Canadian computer scientist, leading to controversy over China's research verification systems. Below, I analyze two articles about the controversy for their purposes as sources on the issue.
 |
| geralt, "Tree Structure Monitor Screens" 2014 via pixabay.com. CC0 Public Domain License. |
In his article, "Critics Pounce on China's Top Science Prize," author Hao Xin analyzes the events and claims over China's National Natural Science Award.
The article is part of the Asia-Pacific section of news.sciencemag.org, which implies the site is for non-profit organizations (thus the .org), which doesn't necessarily verify the website but does imply that the site is ran for the purposes of covering science news to anyone interested.
The author's page on the news site is blank, which does not lend him any credibility or indicate any credentials.
The article was last updated on February 2nd, 2015, and contains numerous links to credible sources on the issue, such as an interview regarding the scandal, a video to the project in question, and even an appeal a concerned computer organization called the CCF that spoke out against the government's role in science awards.
The purpose of the article is chiefly to inform readers about the scandal and how it came about, and details the project that won the award in the context of the competition's history in order to display how the 2014 winner compared to previous years.
The only graphic in the article was a Chinese flag hanging lowly from a flagpole, which may suggest that Chinese pride may have been damaged by this controversy as its scientific merit was brought into question.
The article, aside from detailing the event and controversy, spoke negatively of the awarding process on the grounds that the award in China is considered so prestigious that it is often not awarded to encourage only the most ingenious projects to enter the competition and win. The article overall seemed to think that the award for 2014 to the project in question was not well awarded and given out to an undeserving competitor, as evidenced by the article's focus on the competition's history of not giving out awards to undeserving projects and juxtaposition of the 2014 winner's project with other projects from previous years.
The links provided in the article, again, provide ample sources on the matter that show the interview with the prize winner, video of the project that won the award, and other organizations' reactions to the controversy and the undeserved award.
David Cyranoski's article, "Questions Emerge Over Top Chinese Science Prize," also covers the scandal, and is housed at nature.com, which implies the site is used for commercial purposes (thus the .com) and implies the site is focused on business, specifically news-related business, which does lend some credibility to the source if their news is their business.
The author, as detailed on his own bio on the website, is the news site's Asia-Pacific correspondent of Shanghai, and has a large history in Japan and China as a computer and biology-focused scientist, history teacher, and journalist. His bio is very official and details his experience with nature.com, which lends him a large amount of credibility.
The article was last updated on February 12th, 2015. The article only contains one link to another news story, which suggests that the article may be based on limited information or may be out of date if its sources are so few and not updated.
The article's primary purpose was to inform readers about the controversy and the Chinese government's reactions to allegations of plagiarism directed at the prize-winning project. The article did seem to be promoting more transparent evaluations for scientific awards as it had a large focus on other computer scientists' opinions over the lack of transparency in the evaluation process for China's National Natural Science Award.
The only graphic in the article was a picture of Zhang Yaoxue, the award winner and director of the project's team, holding his award between two other award winners. He has an excited expression on his face and the picture captures a moment of happiness. While this image may simply be to depict the award being given, it may also be being used to further enhance the impact of the controversy over Yaoxue being accused of plagiarism.
The article has a fair balance between pro-Chinese factions defending the award-giving process through citations of the transparency and length of the evaluation process, and individuals' and organizations' opinions against the process as told by officials in the field of computer science and natural sciences who are skeptical that the winning project deserved the award. Overall, however, the article seems to have a slight slant against the Chinese award-giving process, and seems to promote more transparency in the evaluations of projects, as evidenced by the large focus on the Chinese government receiving criticism over its lacking evaluations of scientific work.
The only link provided in the source was to a news report over the allegations against the award-winning project. Despite citing officials and scientists in the article for quotations of their opinions, no links are provided for these, which may be a quality of the article that hinders its credibility.
The article is part of the Asia-Pacific section of news.sciencemag.org, which implies the site is for non-profit organizations (thus the .org), which doesn't necessarily verify the website but does imply that the site is ran for the purposes of covering science news to anyone interested.
The author's page on the news site is blank, which does not lend him any credibility or indicate any credentials.
The article was last updated on February 2nd, 2015, and contains numerous links to credible sources on the issue, such as an interview regarding the scandal, a video to the project in question, and even an appeal a concerned computer organization called the CCF that spoke out against the government's role in science awards.
The purpose of the article is chiefly to inform readers about the scandal and how it came about, and details the project that won the award in the context of the competition's history in order to display how the 2014 winner compared to previous years.
The only graphic in the article was a Chinese flag hanging lowly from a flagpole, which may suggest that Chinese pride may have been damaged by this controversy as its scientific merit was brought into question.
The article, aside from detailing the event and controversy, spoke negatively of the awarding process on the grounds that the award in China is considered so prestigious that it is often not awarded to encourage only the most ingenious projects to enter the competition and win. The article overall seemed to think that the award for 2014 to the project in question was not well awarded and given out to an undeserving competitor, as evidenced by the article's focus on the competition's history of not giving out awards to undeserving projects and juxtaposition of the 2014 winner's project with other projects from previous years.
The links provided in the article, again, provide ample sources on the matter that show the interview with the prize winner, video of the project that won the award, and other organizations' reactions to the controversy and the undeserved award.
David Cyranoski's article, "Questions Emerge Over Top Chinese Science Prize," also covers the scandal, and is housed at nature.com, which implies the site is used for commercial purposes (thus the .com) and implies the site is focused on business, specifically news-related business, which does lend some credibility to the source if their news is their business.
The author, as detailed on his own bio on the website, is the news site's Asia-Pacific correspondent of Shanghai, and has a large history in Japan and China as a computer and biology-focused scientist, history teacher, and journalist. His bio is very official and details his experience with nature.com, which lends him a large amount of credibility.
The article was last updated on February 12th, 2015. The article only contains one link to another news story, which suggests that the article may be based on limited information or may be out of date if its sources are so few and not updated.
The article's primary purpose was to inform readers about the controversy and the Chinese government's reactions to allegations of plagiarism directed at the prize-winning project. The article did seem to be promoting more transparent evaluations for scientific awards as it had a large focus on other computer scientists' opinions over the lack of transparency in the evaluation process for China's National Natural Science Award.
The only graphic in the article was a picture of Zhang Yaoxue, the award winner and director of the project's team, holding his award between two other award winners. He has an excited expression on his face and the picture captures a moment of happiness. While this image may simply be to depict the award being given, it may also be being used to further enhance the impact of the controversy over Yaoxue being accused of plagiarism.
The article has a fair balance between pro-Chinese factions defending the award-giving process through citations of the transparency and length of the evaluation process, and individuals' and organizations' opinions against the process as told by officials in the field of computer science and natural sciences who are skeptical that the winning project deserved the award. Overall, however, the article seems to have a slight slant against the Chinese award-giving process, and seems to promote more transparency in the evaluations of projects, as evidenced by the large focus on the Chinese government receiving criticism over its lacking evaluations of scientific work.
The only link provided in the source was to a news report over the allegations against the award-winning project. Despite citing officials and scientists in the article for quotations of their opinions, no links are provided for these, which may be a quality of the article that hinders its credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment