1. A campaign launched by a prominent Chinese science blogger, known by the handle "Geng Tongxue Jiang Gushi", has led to severe repercussions, resulting in the retraction of two research papers in top-tier Nature journals on July 30. [para. 1] These retractions followed an earlier correction issued by Nature Cell Biology for another paper flagged by the same blogger. [para. 2] Out of the studies publicly questioned by the online sleuth, two have now been retracted and one corrected. [para. 2]
2. The two retracted papers originated from research teams at Tongji University and Nankai University. [para. 3] Both studies faced allegations of abnormally similar raw data shortly after their publication. [para. 3] During subsequent investigations, journal editors discovered further data discrepancies and ultimately concluded that the experimental data could no longer be trusted. [para. 3] Earlier, a team from East China Normal University had corrected five source-data errors in their paper following an author review. [para. 4]
3. In January 2025, Wang Ping, former dean of Tongji University's School of Life Sciences and Technology, and researcher Jin Jiali published a study in *Nature* on human HDAC6 regulating DNA damage. [para. 5][para. 6] The blogger released several in-depth videos in late March and early April of 2026 alleging fraud, dubbing the study "the fakest Nature paper in history" and rebutting Jin's previous explanations on PubPeer. [para. 7] Tongji University announced a special investigation on April 16. [para. 8] A week later, *Nature* added an editorial note alerting readers to data reliability concerns. [para. 8] By May 6, the university dismissed Wang as dean and terminated Jin's employment for severe academic misconduct. [para. 8] The July 30 *Nature* retraction notice stated that post-publication reviews raised concerns over the authenticity of original numerical data, which appeared unusually similar both within and across figures. [para. 9] Editors found further issues in the extended data figures and deemed the authors' justifications for the data similarities unpersuasive, stating the scope of integrity concerns could not be resolved. [para. 10] Three authors, including Wang, agreed to the retraction. [para. 11] Five authors, including Jin and Meng Tong, disagreed; 16 did not respond to queries; and one author could not be reached. [para. 11]
4. The second paper was published in *Nature Cancer* in January 2024 by Chen Quan, former dean of Nankai University's College of Life Sciences, and Du Lei of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exploring overcoming acquired resistance in colorectal cancer by targeting LGR4. [para. 13] On May 30, Nankai University concluded the paper's data problems constituted academic misconduct, firing postdoctoral researcher Zheng Hao and dismissing Chen as dean. [para. 14] The July 30 *Nature Cancer* retraction notice stated that individuals had questioned the authenticity of raw source data, noting identical decimal fractions across different experimental groups. [para. 15] The authors acknowledged the similarities and admitted some numerical data was modified, including the use of template datasets to generate data. [para. 16] The editors stated this violates scientific norms, leading them to lose trust in the results. [para. 16] Sixteen authors disagreed with the retraction, while two agreed; one could not be reached, and three, including Chen, did not reply. [para. 17]
5. On May 27, Geng raised new allegations regarding data issues in papers authored by Li Dali of East China Normal University. [para. 19] The flagged paper, published in *Nature Cell Biology* in May 2020, detailed methods to improve cytosine base editors. [para. 20] On June 17, the journal published a correction notice outlining five source data errors. [para. 21] The corrections addressed mistakenly pasted duplicated data, incorrect relative cell viability data, and cell samples repeatedly collected due to unfamiliarity with software. [para. 22] A source data file that wrongly included a third replicate was removed, and redundant data points were deleted. [para. 22] The authors stated that the corrections stemmed from questions raised on PubPeer and do not affect the article's key findings or conclusions. [para. 23]
AI generated, for reference only
Sign in with Google
Sign in with Facebook
Sign in with 财新