Dong Chen is with the student. Photo/Tsinghua University School of Medicine Official Website
Top scholars are questioned for "paper fraud", which is another public relations crisis in the academic circle. But from past cases, many questions ended up being left unresolved, and the public was still unclear. This "wall between academic and public" has become a "bundle" for academic misconduct.
As the corresponding author, Dong Chen does have the responsibility to "governance"
According to China News Weekly, since May, people have posted anonymously on PubPeer, an online platform for academic exchanges abroad, questioning the problems of more than 20 papers by Dong Chen, dean of the School of Medicine of Tsinghua University and academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, such as multiple use and reuse of one picture. As of press time, 24 papers with the above-mentioned questioned image abnormalities and author signatures including Dong Chen can be retrieved on the PubPeer website.
Dong Chen responded on June 27: "Someone on PubPeer has some questions about the few pictures of some of our articles. We take them very seriously and carefully, and are conducting in-depth investigation and verification of the original data. According to preliminary understanding, intentional academic fraud can be ruled out, and no scientific conclusions of any paper have changed. Some questions are because the questioner is unfamiliar with the research content. However, there are also a few cases where unintentional mistakes exist. We are working with the magazine to modify it. Due to the long span, there are many students and postdoctoral students involved, and the investigation is still ongoing."
Dong Chen emphasized extra: "Basically, malicious fraud is ruled out. The pictures have not been processed by humans, and fraud is not valid."
Pubpeer official website screenshot.
As an internationally renowned immunologist, the question of "suspected fraud" of 24 papers is undoubtedly a crisis of academic reputation for Dong Chen. Judging from the response, Dong Chen is also quite cautious about this, and expressions such as "eliminating malicious fraud" and "unintentional mistakes" seem to be reducing the intensity of allegations of fraud. However, Dong Chen also admitted that there were indeed errors and further investigations on students and postdoctoral fellows related to the project were needed. All 24 papers viewed by
media are Dong Chen as the corresponding author or co-corresponding author. The situation where the tutor serves as the corresponding author is very common both at home and abroad. Corresponding authors often refer to the general person in charge of the project, who bears the responsibility for funding, designing, writing and reviewing the article. Therefore, the corresponding authors are not just "correspondents", but in fact, they must ensure the reliability of the article and be responsible for all kinds of issues in the publication of the paper.
Therefore, regardless of whether the student or postdoctoral fellow involved did "unintentionally make mistakes", Dong Chen, as the corresponding author, should bear the corresponding "lack of strict control" responsibility, and this responsibility cannot be shirked. This also reminds all the academic "big guys" that maintaining their academic reputation is not only responsible for the content they write, but also for the entire team. When it comes to academic issues, you cannot be careless at all.
Of course, I don’t want to do “ presumption of guilt ”. Dong Chen has been rated as a global "highly cited scientist" for six consecutive years. I also believe that he will love his academic feathers; but as the head of the team, it is indeed difficult for him to ensure that no one in the internal situation will commit fraud. Therefore, since some clues have been found, we should follow the root of the problem and dig out the truth. Only in this way can we block individual speculation and luck, so that counterfeiters will not be unscrupulous, and the academic community will not be shamed.
Dong Chen’s resume and research direction. Photo/Tsinghua University School of Medicine Official Website
"Whether it is fake" must not only respond to the academic community, but also explain to the public
I originally wanted to find these 24 articles to study them one by one, but unfortunately, after searching for a few articles, I found that this is indeed beyond my ability. I also realize that this may also be the problem - the gap between the academic circle and the public is getting thicker and thicker, which has also led to the growth of "pride and prejudice". When the general public sees similar news, they are convinced that "the water in the academic world is too deep", which is the "prejudice" of people outside the wall against the wall; and although the professionals who are truly in it know it well, sometimes they are unwilling to hold public discussions. This is the "pride" of insiders towards outsiders.
The public does not understand the academic community and is not open to the public. Under this kind of mutual communication ecosystem, supervision of the academic community is very scarce. This also breeds the lucky mentality of some academic misconduct: the possibility of fraud being discovered is slim, but publishing papers is a need for rooting in the academic community.
This also requires that the academic committees of some universities or research institutions should further strengthen the investigation and disclosure of clues related to "academic misconduct" and actively communicate with the public.
Taking this storm as an example, some netizens pointed out that there are indeed minor flaws in the stickers of three articles, and most of the remaining articles have no problems, but the questioners did not understand the article thoroughly. If this is true, it should be said that Tsinghua University or the Chinese Academy of Sciences and other relevant institutions should conduct a detailed investigation of the exposed problems and make public and convincing responses, or clear Academician Dong Chen's blame or deal with existing problems. The general public may find it difficult to understand professional articles, but the detailed disclosure and explanation of the issue itself by relevant parties is itself a statement, representing a "zero tolerance" for academic misconduct and a scientific spirit that allows criticism and inclusive doubt.
In short, "Dong Chen was questioned for falsification of the paper", the bullet may have to fly for a while, but the bullet cannot fly and disappear. The relevant parties should immediately initiate an investigation and present the truth to the public. Whether it is the errors or misunderstandings involved, they may explain them clearly in a thorough manner so that the matter will have a beginning and an end.
Science itself develops from doubt. Any scientist, no matter how high his status, needs to face doubts. Strictly distinguishing between "unintentional errors" and "intentional fraud" is a requirement of scientific development itself and a necessity for purifying the academic ecology.
article | Si Ning (media person)
Editor: Di Xuanya Intern: Wang Xueying Proofreader: Wu Xingfa
