Abstract：Research integrity is a fundamental institutional basis for modernizing national science and technology governance.As generative artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in research activities,it challenges the conventional governance logic centered on textual detection,responsibility attribution,and ex post sanctions.Based on 25 central-level research integrity policy documents issued in China from 1999 to 2024,this study combines Latent Dirichlet Allocation(LDA)topic modeling with historical institutionalism to examine their thematic structure,evolutionary stages,and institutional mechanisms.The findings reveal a transition from conventional academic misconduct governance toward a preventive,systematic,and process-oriented paradigm.The policy structure has shifted from a dual focus on academic ethics development and sanctions against academic misconduct to a multidimensional framework encompassing science and technology ethics education,research process regulation,accountability for breaches of research integrity,and sanctions against academic misconduct.This shift has formed an integrated governance chain linking value formation,process regulation,accountability,and deterrent sanctions.Institutionally,the paradigm transformation has been driven by the reorientation of national science and technology governance objectives,the deeper incorporation of administrative accountability,and the combined effects of risk events and technological paradigm shifts.The study reveals the institutional logic of China's transition from ex-post responses to anticipatory regulation,held discussions based on the evolving trend of global research integrity governance,and offers implications for optimizing governance rules and institutional arrangements in the era of generative artificial intelligence.
郝敬丹, 王青. 生成式人工智能冲击下中国科研诚信治理的范式转型研究[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2026(9): 82-90.
Hao Jingdan, Wang Qing. Paradigm Transformation of Research Integrity Governance in China in the Context of Generative Artificial Intelligence. , 2026(9): 82-90.
[1] 廖先慧.生成式人工智能时代学术不端的形态表征与规制路径[M]//刘志强,张昕.学报编辑论丛(2023).上海:上海大学出版社,2024:538-543. [2] Eaton S E.Postplagiarism:transdisciplinary ethics and integrity in the age of artificial intelligence and neurotechnology[J].International Journal for Educational Integrity,2023,19(1):23. [3] Wittenberg H.Turn-it-off:reflections on technology,the knowledge commons and the academic plagiarism industry[J].Scrutiny2,2024,28(1):52-67. [4] 俞立平,周朦朦,苏光耀.中国科研诚信政策的演化特征研究:基于1981-2020年的政策文本分析[J].情报科学,2022,40(5):51-58,64. [5] 杜宝贵,左志远.基于1999-2019年数据的中国科研诚信政策量化分析[J].科技管理研究,2020,40(18):252-259. [6] 冯凌子,刘敬,袁军鹏.我国科研诚信政策变迁计量分析[J].图书情报工作,2020,64(9):73-84. [7] 杨锐,杨亮,李良强,等.我国科研诚信政策特征及演化逻辑:基于文本挖掘法[J].科技进步与对策,2020,37(20):89-98. [8] 温虹,贾利帅.我国高校科研诚信政策研究:基于政策工具的视角[J].中国高教研究,2021(4):48-54. [9] 郝凯冰,郭菊娥,张旭.高校学术不端行为治理政策效能的演变特征[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2017,37(6):48-56. [10] 张韬略,陈沪楠.何以透明,以何透明:高等教育的AIGC剽窃与技术之治[J].中国远程教育,2025,45(1):113-130. [11] 姚俊智.生成式人工智能参与学术出版的伦理风险及其调治[J].出版发行研究,2024(11):89-96. [12] Muñoz-Cantero J M,Espiñeira-Bellón E M.Intelligent plagiarism as a misconduct in academic integrity[J].Acta Médica Portuguesa,2024,37(1):1-2. [13] Thelen K.Historical institutionalism in comparative politics[J].Annual Review of Political Science,1999(2):369-404. [14] Hall P A,Taylor R C R.Political science and the three new institutionalisms[J].Political Studies,1996,44(5):936-957. [15] 诺思.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M].杭行,译.上海:格致出版社,2008:126-130. [16] 关鹏,王曰芬.科技情报分析中LDA主题模型最优主题数确定方法研究[J].现代图书情报技术,2016(9):42-50. [17] 张东鑫,张敏.图情领域LDA主题模型应用研究进展述评[J].图书情报知识,2022,39(6):143-157. [18] 苏丹妮,皮思斯,奉国和.我国人工智能政策语义、主题特征与演化研究:基于政策文本的量化分析[J].文献与数据学报,2023,5(4):16-29. [19] 伊丽莎白·桑德斯,张贤明.历史制度主义:分析框架、三种变体与动力机制[J].学习与探索,2017(1):42-49,174. [20] 何俊志.结构、历史与行为:历史制度主义的分析范式[J].国外社会科学,2002(5):25-33. [21] 马得勇.历史制度主义的渐进性制度变迁理论:兼论其在中国的适用性[J].经济社会体制比较,2018(5):158-170. [22] 周光礼,吴越.我国高校专业设置政策六十年回顾与反思:基于历史制度主义的分析[J].高等工程教育研究,2009(5):62-75. [23] Bjelobaba S,Waddington L,Perkins M,et al.Maintaining research integrity in the age of GenAI:an analysis of ethical challenges and recommendations to researchers[J].International Journal for Educational Integrity,2025,21(1):18. [24] Chen Ziyu,Chen Changye,Yang Guozhao,et al.Research integrity in the era of artificial intelligence:challenges and responses[J].Medicine,2024,103(27):e38811. [25] Vasconcelos S,Marušić A.GenAI and research integrity:where to now? The integration of generative AI in the research process challenges well-established definitions of research integrity[J].European Molecular Biology Organization Reports,2025,26(8):1923-1928. [26] European Commission.Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research[R].Brussels:European Commission,2026:7-11. [27] Da Veiga A.Ethical guidelines for the use of generative artificial intelligence and artificial intelligence-assisted tools in scholarly publishing:a thematic analysis[J].Science Editing,2025,12(1):28-34. [28] National Institutes of Health.The use of generative artificial intelligence technologies is prohibited for the NIH peer review process[EB/OL].(2023-06-23)[2026-06-28].https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-149.html. [29] National Science Foundation.Notice to research community:use of generative artificial intelligence technology in the NSF merit review process[EB/OL].(2023-12-14)[2026-06-28].https://www.nsf.gov/policies/ai/merit-review. [30] Pellegrina D,Helmy M.AI for scientific integrity:detecting ethical breaches,errors,and misconduct in manuscripts[J].Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence,2025(8):1644098.
2026, 
