Read on Twitter
China's Ministry of Science and Technology issued a statement today on several cases of suspected science misconduct.
In all cases, it was concluded that no fraud was committed.
Yet, the images flagged on @PubPeer appear to tell a different story.
(thread)
In all cases, it was concluded that no fraud was committed.
Yet, the images flagged on @PubPeer appear to tell a different story.
(thread)
Today's statement from the Ministry of Science and Technology can be found here:
"Notification on the investigation and handling of suspected fraudulent papers"
http://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/202101/t20210121_160971.htm
"Notification on the investigation and handling of suspected fraudulent papers"
http://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/202101/t20210121_160971.htm
"1. Investigation conclusions and handling opinions on academician Cao Xuetao’s thesis
Questioned the 63 papers of Academician Cao Xuetao on the Internet. After investigation, no fraud, plagiarism or plagiarism was found...." (sic)
Questioned the 63 papers of Academician Cao Xuetao on the Internet. After investigation, no fraud, plagiarism or plagiarism was found...." (sic)
"... but many papers were found to have misuse of pictures, reflecting the lack of strict laboratory management."
So this wording suggests that images might have been reused, but not intentionally. Just sloppy management.
So this wording suggests that images might have been reused, but not intentionally. Just sloppy management.
And in some of Cao's papers flagged on @Pubpeer for image concerns I can see that these might be honest errors. Here, maybe someone combined the same image twice by accident, but with different gated percentages.
And here, the same blot maybe was accidentally reused in two different papers to represent two different sets of tissues.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2DA67F4FE904F63A1EE6F0550077B6
https://pubpeer.com/publications/2DA67F4FE904F63A1EE6F0550077B6
But there are multiple Cao papers where it is very, very unlikely that an "accident" has happened. How can one explain plots like these by anything else than data manipulation?
This paper did get retracted, but Ministry of Science thought it was fine.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5DF920206D8B16786051D2F45AF545
This paper did get retracted, but Ministry of Science thought it was fine.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/5DF920206D8B16786051D2F45AF545
This blot also was totally fine too. Not misconduct at all, according to the Ministry.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/206A13FD9B415266C05A1023ACAFAF
https://pubpeer.com/publications/206A13FD9B415266C05A1023ACAFAF
No misconduct here either, the Ministry concluded.
Just a case of not keeping track of the images.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AACB1D8E4664C1182E5B7B3F79A4D3
Just a case of not keeping track of the images.
https://pubpeer.com/publications/AACB1D8E4664C1182E5B7B3F79A4D3
Nothing to see here either, just mislabeling. Totally fine. Just do better next time. (sarcasm)
https://pubpeer.com/publications/08E56DF7BB4E8E835A1E0F9C447526
https://pubpeer.com/publications/08E56DF7BB4E8E835A1E0F9C447526
I could go on with more examples, but I hope to have made my point: most of these concerns appear to be more than just errors. These duplications did not happen by honest mistakes. Rather, they suggest an "intention to mislead".
Now, Dr. Cao, the head of the lab, will face some consequences. He will not walk away completely free.
But most of these papers have not been corrected/retracted. They remain standing.
And the Ministry did not call any of this fraud.
But most of these papers have not been corrected/retracted. They remain standing.
And the Ministry did not call any of this fraud.
More background on this and the other cases on @schneiderleonid 's blog: https://forbetterscience.com/2021/01/21/communist-party-gives-xuetao-cao-meiyu-geng-hongliang-li-a-slap-on-the-wrist/
