Response of vice president of Peking University: a few marking errors do not involve academic misconduct

category:Global
 Response of vice president of Peking University: a few marking errors do not involve academic misconduct


On July 23, an online article about Zhan Qimin, executive vice president of Peking University, director of the medical department of Peking University and academician of the Chinese Academy of engineering, was recently exposed in pubpeer, an overseas website, that attracted attention.

According to the report of China News Weekly on July 23, Zhan Qimins team has responded to four papers and corrected four others on pubpeer. Among the 25 papers, there were 15 papers with similar or repeated experimental images. For one of the papers with repeated images, Zhan Qimins team replied that it was because the same experimental map was wrongly placed in different experiments. For another paper with repeated images, the author replied that the images were not the same because the resolution was too low. In another paper, the author apologized that it was a mistake to sort the images.

In response to online queries, Zhan Qimin told surging news, first of all, Id like to express my gratitude to the commentators on the US pubpeer website for their concern and query on our scientific research papers. My collaborators and I attach great importance to and take seriously the queries raised by pubpeer reviewers, carefully verify the relevant articles and experimental results, and seriously conduct discussions.

Zhan Qimin said that at present, no data fraud and academic misconduct have been found, and the verified experimental results are reliable and repeatable. The phenomenon of marking errors in a few papers does not involve academic misconduct and does not affect scientific conclusions.

We are in the process of communicating with the relevant magazines to make corrections in accordance with the practice of the academic community. We are also actively responding to the reviewers different views on the experimental methods we have adopted, their incomprehension with some of the relevant papers, and ethical issues involving animal experiments We will take a rigorous attitude to further comprehensively verify, objectively answer questions, and complete the Corrigendum work, Zhan said. Please pay attention to and supervise the academic circles.

We welcome and thank our colleagues at home and abroad for their attention and supervision of our scientific research work. Rational questioning and discussion are conducive to further strengthening the management of all aspects of scientific research and improving the level of scientific research. Zhan Qimin also said that he believed that real scientific research work should stand the challenge of peers and the test of time.

(function(){( window.slotbydup=window .slotbydup||[]).push({id:u5811557,container:ssp_ 5811557, async:true }At the same time, we also firmly believe that our colleagues and friends will rationally treat these doubts and make objective judgments on our scientific research work Zhan Qimin said. According to the report of China Newsweek, pubpeer, retractionwatch and forbetter science are both well-known international anti-counterfeiting websites. According to the rules of pubpeer, users can choose real name or anonymous comments. Reviews dont appear on the site until they are reviewed, while anonymous comments and grey list account reviews can take up to a week. The website will not review the scientificity and authenticity of the comments, but will reject comments that are obviously wrong, unclear, misleading or potentially malicious. A teacher of Hebei University is accused of plagiarism in his thesis_ NN4113

At the same time, we also firmly believe that our colleagues and friends will rationally treat these doubts and make objective judgments on our scientific research work. Zhan Qimin said.

According to the report of China Newsweek, pubpeer, retractionwatch and forbetter science are both well-known international anti-counterfeiting websites. According to the rules of pubpeer, users can choose real name or anonymous comments. Reviews dont appear on the site until they are reviewed, while anonymous comments and grey list account reviews can take up to a week. The website will not review the scientificity and authenticity of the comments, but will reject comments that are obviously wrong, unclear, misleading or potentially malicious.