Regarding the case of 25 papers questioning fraud, Zhan Qimin, Executive Vice President of Peking University, director of Peking University Medical Department, and academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, responded that there were indeed a few papers in the phenomenon of marking errors, which did not involve academic misconduct, nor affecting scientific conclusions.
According to the surging news report, in response to the online question, Zhan Qimin responded on July 24: First of all, I thanked the commentators on the US Pubpeer website in the United States for their attention and doubts about our scientific papers.My collaborators and I attached great importance to and carefully treated the questions raised by PUBPEER commentators, carefully verified the expression and experimental results of relevant articles, and carefully discussed.
Zhan Qimin said that no data fraud and academic situations are found at present, and the verified experimental results are reliable and repetitive.There is indeed a phenomenon of marking errors in a small number of papers, which does not involve academic misconduct, nor does it affect scientific conclusions.
Zhan Qimin said: We are communicating with relevant magazine agencies in accordance with the practice of academia.Regarding the critics have different views on the experimental methods we use, do not understand the content of the relevant papers, and the ethical issues involving animal experiments, we are also actively responding to discuss and exchange with the critics.We will further verify, objectively answer questions with a rigorous attitude, and complete relevant errors.Please pay attention and supervise the academic community.
He also said that he believes that real scientific research should stand the doubts and test tests of his peers. Welcome and thank your colleagues at home and abroad to pay attention and supervise our scientific research.The rational questioning and discussion will help us to further strengthen the management of all aspects of scientific research and improve the level of scientific research.At the same time, we are also convinced that scientific research fellows and the majority of friends will look at these questions rationally and make objective judgments on our scientific research work.
On July 23, an article about overseas website Pubpeer questioned Zhan Qimin's suspicion of fraud.The 25 papers that Zhan Qimin was questioned span a large span. The earliest articles were published in 1998, and the most recently published in 2019.These papers are mainly accused of duplicate, similar or errors in the existence of data, violations of animal experiments, and incorrect experiments.
China News Weekly reported on July 23 that on Pubpeer, Zhan Qimin's team currently responded to four papers, and there were four other articles for errors.Among the 25 papers, there are 15 papers that are similar or duplicate.Regarding one of the dishes with images, Zhan Qimin's team replied that it was caused by different experiments that the same experimental diagram was placed.As for another dissection of images, the author's reply is actually not the same because the resolution is too low, and there is a paper. The author apologized that it caused errors in the image sorting.
The report mentioned that Pubpeer and Retraction Watch, for Better Science are both internationally renowned academic counterfeit websites.According to the rules of the Pubpeer website, users can choose real names or anonymous comments.The review will only appear on the website after review, and the review process of anonymous reviews and ashlist account reviews can reach up to one week.The website will not review the scientific and authenticity of the comment, but it refuses to make obvious errors, unclear expressions, misleading or potentially malicious comments.
