By creating a novel theoretical framework based in the sociology of science but adapted to China's particular state-led system, this study tackles the ongoing problem of scientific misconduct in the country's research landscape. China has a disproportionately high retraction rate (0.3%, three times the global average), according to an analysis of global retraction data from 2001 to 2020. There are also clear trends, with emerging science nations like China seeing rising retraction shares that surpass their publication output while established powers saw declines. The prevalence of plagiarism and fabrication gave way to more complex types of misconduct, such as paper mills, which had an especially negative effect on the fields of biology and medicine during China's explosive rise in these domains. Historically, universities were the main providers, but in the past ten years, hospitals—which are primarily associated with paper mills—have risen to over half of retractions.

These patterns reveal the shortcomings of Western-centric theories such as Merton's concept of "priority" competition. This framework positions China's "Competition for Meritocracy" (You Sheng Quan) as fundamental. Government dominance fosters a resource allocation model characterized by "competition for excellence," compelling researchers to engage in intense rivalry during a "shortlist-selection" process. Success is fundamentally dependent not on absolute "priority" but on attaining relative superiority within a candidate pool, reflecting the principles of "meritocracy." This generates distinct pressure dynamics: the main stressor is uncertainty stemming from the performance escalation of peers within the cohort, rather than from fixed benchmarks. Accelerated average peer growth significantly increases pressure, which, when it surpasses the limitations of national integrity policies and scientific self-regulation, results in misconduct.

This framework underwent empirical validation via a rigorous micro-level quantitative analysis of Chinese biology researchers, a field characterized by high levels of misconduct. A matched-pair sample was created consisting of 116 researchers with retractions from 2001 to 2020, paired with 116 controls matched on institution, department, gender, age, education, career stage, and honors, but lacking retractions. The longitudinal career and performance data from 2001 to 2020 resulted in an unbalanced panel comprising 3,920 observations. Logistic regression incorporating time fixed effects validated the primary hypotheses. 1) Increased perceived competitive pressure, indicated by the deviation of individual publication growth from personal moving averages, significantly elevated the probability of misconduct; 2) Accelerated average peer publication growth within the department (lagged) notably heightened misconduct, supporting the peer-driven pressure mechanism; 3) The existence of an active institutional misconduct policy substantially diminished the pressure-misconduct relationship, highlighting the essential role of organizational governance in mitigation.

Consequently, the persistence of misconduct in China is fundamentally rooted in the systemic pressures arising from competition for relative status within a meritocratic allocation framework. Effective solutions necessitate structural reform: shifting resource allocation from solely competitive selection to hybrid models that include thresholds; enhancing the governance capacity of research organizations to enforce integrity policies; and promoting collaborative ecosystems to reduce hyper-competition and redirect research towards meaningful innovation. Addressing these systemic drivers is essential for ensuring sustainable research integrity in China and comparable contexts.