A scuffle that has riled the Chinese scientific community could have been avoided if the parties involved had hammered out the details of their collaboration beforehand.

On 16 November, researchers at Peking University in Beijing claimed discovery of a biological-compass mechanism that could explain how some animals sense magnetism (S. Qinet al.NatureMater.http://doi.org/89v;2015). But some of the paper’s thunder was stolen by a researcher at Tsinghua University, also in Beijing, who reported in September how the same mechanism could be used to manipulate neurons in worms (X. Longet al.Sci.Bull.http://doi.org/883;2015).

When the September paper was published, the lead Peking University researcher cried foul, claiming that his Tsinghua colleague had agreed not to publish until the Nature Materials paper came out (see Naturehttp://doi.org/9gg;2015). University administrators got involved, the Tsinghua researcher was fired, and his graduate student, whose career has been upended, circulated a plea for support to China’s scientific community. The Peking researcher has called for his rival’s paper to be retracted. Both parties have mustered e-mails and other correspondence to show that the facts are on their side.

A detailed, formalized agreement could have prevented this. When embarking on a collaboration, it can be hard to ask a scientific peer to sign a contract. Lawyers get involved, making it cumbersome and costly. Fencing off rights to patents, authorship, publication and decision-making authority can be tedious and can cause tension. A simple handshake is much more comfortable.

This is true for researchers around the world. But in China, where people are finely tuned to what might make them lose face, the bar is especially high. Asking someone to sign such an agreement feels equivalent to saying that you don’t trust them.

The biggest hindrance to harmonious collaboration was tension over authorship.

A survey of Chinese researchers undertaken by Nature Publishing Group supports that observation. Scientists who had worked abroad were asked about the differences in the working environment in China compared with that in other countries, including the ease of carrying out collaborations. Some noted that Chinese researchers usually do not ask for formal agreements. The reason might be cultural, but it could also be that most universities and research organizations in China do not have the personnel to support this function.

The survey results appear in a 26 November report, Turning Point: Chinese Science in Transition (see go.nature.com/ybsatt and go.nature.com/fdwacj; in Chinese). The biggest hindrance to harmonious collaboration, according to interviewees, was tension over authorship — a factor that plays a substantial part in the dispute over the biological-compass papers. In China, assessors of a researcher’s achievements focus on papers in which the individual is first or corresponding author. The report suggests that research assessment should take a more balanced approach, and that policymakers can iron out some of these wrinkles.

It is clear that university administrators can help collaborations by providing personnel to deal with the legal aspects. It might be a burden in the short term, but in the long term it would encourage collaboration. Scientists with valuable knowledge who want to protect their rights to priority in publication, patents and other areas deserve as much.