The scientific community is an international body of professionals who ultimately work collaboratively to advance scientific discovery and applications. It is because of this global network of interactions that occur among these scientists that individuals must make every effort to ensure the integrity of their research conducted and ultimately published. China, due to the large number of individuals in its scientific workforce, has a significant degree of influence and responsibility over the scientific materials it publishes for use by a global audience . It is because of this responsibility that leaders in China's scientific community are doing everything possible to address growing concerns about violations within scientific research and to educate individuals to prevent possible incidents in the future. . An example of this collective effort is demonstrated in the article “Research Integrity in China” published by President Wei Yang of the National Natural Science Foundation of China. Not only does President Yang identify the current problem of ethical misconduct within China's scientific community, but he also outlines the collective efforts, both domestically and abroad, that have been made to address and rectify such divergences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The opening of Yang's article focuses on the need to protect the integrity of the research being conducted based on the implications that might arise from it. Scientific research is no longer just a measure of an individual scientist's success; it is also a reflection of the intelligence of their nation in a global context. The relative ease of publishing and obtaining information from virtually anywhere in the world has enabled the explosive expansion of the scientific community to previously unparalleled levels. It is because of this increase in communications across the globe that Yang highlights the growing concern over breaches of research integrity among Chinese academics. It presents the problem that when such unethical problems are brought to public attention, they rarely remain localized at the national level for long. When such news becomes known, Yang points out that such controversies can degrade other contributions that China's scientific community might present. It is unlikely that such a phenomenon is unique to a single country. I believe that any case in which research integrity is lacking would surely be a burden to the nation of origin. Perhaps the greatest consequence of such actions would be the association of this country's scientific community with a lack of integrity, even if it were just one group of individuals. Yang presents the fact that although the characteristics that contribute to discrepancies in research integrity within scientific research may contribute to an "unhealthy research environment", efforts are actively being made to correct and prevent such problems from occurring. will not occur again in the future (Yang, 1019). . Interestingly, most, if not all, of these efforts are similar to those of other scientific communities around the world. Such resolutions include limiting the number of submissions of the same article to different journals, extending the length of the review process to detect errors (or fraud) before public publication, and much more (Yang, 1019 ). These effortsfurther demonstrate that these issues are not isolated within a single country but also within the global scientific community. By using international means to monitor the research integrity of the scientific community, Yang once again demonstrates the interconnectedness and interdependence that is necessary for China's success, both domestically and abroad . Ensuring research integrity within the scientific community is not the responsibility of a single nation. Just as fraud and errors occur in research conducted all over the world, it is the responsibility of all members of the scientific community to ensure the integrity of the research conducted. President Wei Yang's article on the need for more active efforts in China is just one example of a growing trend. Perhaps the best example of this is Yang's statement that credible science cannot “take place until the scientific enterprise is sound and credible” (Yang, 1019). For science to advance with the quality and pace required, those working in this field must ensure that the integrity of their research is ethical, credible and sustainable. China's Publication Bazaar Since the most direct form of interaction and use of scientific research is through the use of publications, observations within the community show a shift from an academic culture to a business model. China appears to be one such epicenter of this trade in which scientists buy a line of authorship in a paper that has not yet been published (Hvistendahl, 1035). The most direct comparison I could make to such a practice would be that of a company purchasing advertising space for self-promotion. Either way, they lack taste and further diminish their respective communities as a whole. One of the most critical problems that arise with the continued use of this practice is that it becomes a relatively easy product due to the speed and ease of communication via the Internet. In this way, scientific articles are treated as a commodity that could just as easily be purchased as any other consumer product. Such a trend is of great concern in China and is best described in Mara Hvistendahl's article "China's Publication Bazaar" which describes how this practice is allowed to continue and the need to prevent it by the scientific community. The commerce and sale of authorship of scientific articles is becoming a significant problem because it completely demoralizes the overarching theme of science: the pursuit and application of original thought. When scientists decide to deliberately use their research solely as a means of income and recognition, then the entire scientific process is tainted with corruption, dishonesty, and likely unimpressive research. Hvistendahl best demonstrates this demoralization of scientific thought when one of these authors' societies stated that "'some authors don't have much use for their papers after publication, and they may be transferred to you'" ( Hvistendahl, 1035). This statement demonstrates the extent to which such exchanges of authorship publications degrade the research conducted. I believe that scientists should be proud of the research they do and not view it as a way to get a higher salary or promotion. Research ownership is a key element within the scientific community and such practices only do a disservice to those attempting to present credible (and ethical) research. Even..