Yue Liu, Scientific Accountability: The Case for Personal Responsibility in Academic Error Correction, Qeios, Preprint, 2025, https://doi.org/10.32388/M4GGKZ
Aren’t there already many fraudulent papers published in journals like Nature and Science? (1)
What Do I Think About This Issue Now? （1）
将下面内容翻译成英语，结合视频用英文写一篇文章。
追责
水门事件，可能尼克松根本不知情，但是无论如何，尼克松必须为此负责。
但是在科学界，完全是另一个场景。
我们可以追究作者的造假责任，但是我们没有追究编辑、审稿人责任的机制。
当出现了造假丑闻后，我们的期刊还在那里坚持自己的刊物是严格的同行评审期刊、立足点就是同行评审神圣不可批评。
When Authority Speaks—and Reality Answers Back
造假，作者必须承担责任。但是作者的责任是作者的责任，不能因此不追究编辑和审稿人的责任。
这也是整个科学体制的责任。是整个科学体制将做实验这种积累数据的炼金术当成科学、实验是检验真理的唯一标准、没有新的实验数据就不是科学研究。实际上科学是以建立学科理论为标志诞生的、科学是提升理论认知、而不是做实验积累数据的炼金术，炼金术时代没有科学、只有实验。
是现代科学轻视理论、致使科学研究者只看期刊文献不看学术专著提升理论能力，导致研究者理论水平地无法鉴别造假而使造假在当今学术界盛行、因为实验造假成本很低：
Liu, Yue, The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5463155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5463155
从微波吸收理论看，主流科学家连大学本科的波叠加原理的理论水平都不具备，是现代学界整体理论水平地的一个充分表现。
但是我们不能因为科学界的整个科学哲学观的错误而不追究编辑和审稿人的责任。谁的责任是谁的责任。不能因为一个人承担了自己的责任就不追究其他人的责任。
中国一旦由大人物受 到学术不端的指控，就有国际大咖在Nature发表文章、为中国的大人物开脱罪责。这种裙带关系被以没有确实证据不能说。但是如果怀疑都不允许，这种裙带关系这么能被曝光，难道这种裙带关系能明明白白地documented? 对于弱者的质疑需要谨慎，但是对于权威的任何质疑都不过分。
论文工厂之所以猖獗，没有顶级期刊的协作能实现那么大的利润吗？他们有信誉保证出多大的价钱，就保证发表什么级别的刊物，难道仅仅靠编辑和审稿人的疏忽能做得到吗？出了问题，论文工厂先承担下来，之后变个名目东山再起，就如同造假的人换个单位继续当官。
Blatant Public Advertising of Paper Mills
最可恶的是实实在在的证据摆在面前的时候，我们还在装作慎重来保护邪恶。
在科学界，造假是最大的犯罪、保护造假是更大的罪恶。
Here is the translation of the provided text, followed by an integrated English article that combines the arguments from both the text and the video transcript.
Part 1: Translation of the Provided Text
Accountability
In the Watergate scandal, Nixon might have been completely unaware, but regardless, Nixon had to take responsibility for it.
However, in the scientific community, it is a completely different scene.
We can hold authors accountable for fraud, but we lack a mechanism to hold editors and reviewers accountable.
When a fraud scandal occurs, our journals continue to insist that their publications are rigorous peer-reviewed journals, basing their stance on the notion that peer review is sacred and beyond criticism.
Blatant Public Advertising of Paper Mills
For fraud, the author must bear responsibility. But the author’s responsibility is their own; it cannot be used as an excuse to exempt editors and reviewers from their responsibility. This is also the responsibility of the entire scientific system. It is the scientific system as a whole that treats the alchemy of accumulating data through experiments as science, believes that experiments are the sole criterion for testing truth, and insists that without new experimental data, it is not scientific research.
In reality, the birth of science was marked by the establishment of disciplinary theories. Science is about elevating theoretical cognition, not the alchemy of doing experiments to accumulate data. In the era of alchemy, there was no science, only experiments. It is modern science’s disregard for theory—causing scientific researchers to only read journal articles instead of academic monographs to improve their theoretical capacity—that has led to a theoretical poverty among researchers. They are theoretically incapable of identifying fraud, which allows fraud to run rampant in today’s academia, especially since the cost of experimental fraud is so low:
Liu, Yue, The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5463155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5463155
Looking at microwave absorption theory, mainstream scientists do not even possess the theoretical understanding of the undergraduate-level wave superposition principle. This is a full manifestation of the low overall theoretical level of modern academia.
However, we cannot fail to hold editors and reviewers accountable just because the entire scientific philosophy of the academic community is flawed. Whose responsibility is whose. Just because one person bears their responsibility does not mean we should stop pursuing the responsibilities of others.
In China, the moment a prominent figure faces allegations of academic misconduct, international bigwigs will publish articles in Nature to exonerate them. This kind of nepotism is often brushed off with the excuse that “you cannot speak without concrete evidence.” But if even suspicion is not allowed, how can this nepotism ever be exposed? Can this kind of nepotism ever be cleanly and clearly documented? We must be cautious when questioning the weak, but no amount of questioning against authority is ever excessive.
The reason paper mills are so rampant—could they achieve such massive profits without the collaboration of top-tier journals? They have the credibility to guarantee publication in a specific tier of journal based on the price paid; could this really be achieved merely through the “negligence” of editors and reviewers? When problems arise, paper mills take the blame first, and then rebrand to make a comeback, just like fraudsters who simply change institutions to continue serving as officials.
Blatant Public Advertising of Paper Mills
The most detestable thing is that when solid evidence is placed right in front of us, we still pretend to act with “caution” in order to protect evil.
In the scientific community, fraud is the greatest crime, and protecting fraud is an even greater evil.
Part 2: Integrated Article By Gemini
Systemic Complicity and Scapegoats: The Crisis of Accountability in Modern Academia
Reflections on Yue Liu’s “Scientific Accountability” and the Tongji University Fraud Scandal
In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon was forced to resign. Whether he knew about the break-in beforehand was secondary; as the man at the top, he had to take responsibility. Yet, when we turn our gaze to the modern scientific community, this fundamental principle of leadership accountability completely vanishes. Instead, we are faced with a deeply entrenched system of academic corruption where powerful authorities shield each other, top-tier journals deflect blame, and vulnerable students are offered up as sacrificial lambs.
Recent academic scandals, such as the blatant data manipulation exposed at Tongji University involving papers published in Nature, reveal a terrifying “exoneration template” used by the academic establishment. When fraudulent papers are caught, the true culprits—the system, the academic authorities, and the journals—almost always escape unscathed.
The Scapegoat Mechanism: Protecting the Academic Elites
As highlighted by independent commentators tracking the Tongji University scandal, modern academic institutions have perfected a three-step playbook to protect powerful Principal Investigators (PIs) and Deans.
First, malicious, subjective data fabrication is euphemistically rebranded as “data mismanagement” or “operational error.” Second, the blame is entirely shifted to the “executor”—usually the first author, a graduate student or postdoc who has no power to resist. Third, the Corresponding Author (the PI) claims absolute ignorance, stating they “trusted the student too much,” reducing academic fraud to a mere “administrative loophole.”
This defense is an insult to basic logic. In the top-tier life sciences laboratories of China and the world, the hierarchy is ironclad. PIs micromanage everything from securing national funding and designing experimental strategies to rigorously reviewing weekly group meetings. It takes months, if not years, of data compilation and manuscript iteration to publish in Nature. When a paper succeeds, the PI proudly takes the credit, boasting of “a decade of hard work.” Yet, when the data is proven fake, they suddenly claim they were in the bathroom for those ten years.
According to standard academic protocols, the Corresponding Author bears ultimate responsibility for the authenticity of the data. They are not merely signers of a document; they are the guarantors of truth. When a student takes the fall to protect a Dean, it is an abuse of power. The student, whose career is tied entirely to the lab, has no choice but to take the blame, while the PI receives a slap on the wrist and retains their titles, grants, and prestige.
The Complicity of Top Journals and Paper Mills
But the rot does not stop at the university level; it extends to the very gatekeepers of science. When fraudulent papers are published in journals like Nature and Science, we must ask: where is the accountability for the editors and reviewers?
As researcher Yue Liu points out, journals hide behind the supposedly sacred shield of peer review, pretending their processes are flawless. Yet, paper mills are currently operating with rampant success, generating massive profits. These fraudulent factories boldly guarantee publication in specific tiers of journals based on the price paid. Is it realistically possible for such a massive, guaranteed black market to exist purely because of the “carelessness” of editors and reviewers? Or is there systemic complicity and collaboration at play?
Furthermore, when prominent academic figures in China or elsewhere face allegations of misconduct, a network of nepotism immediately activates. International heavyweights rush to publish defense pieces in top journals, gaslighting whistleblowers by demanding “concrete, documented evidence”—evidence that is impossible to obtain because the system suppresses all suspicion. We are told to be cautious with our accusations, but as Liu rightly notes: we must be cautious when questioning the weak, but no amount of questioning against authority is ever excessive.
The Root Cause: The Alchemy of Data over Theory
Why has fraud become so cheap, so easy, and so prevalent? Yue Liu argues in The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia that modern science has devolved into a form of alchemy. The academic system now worships the accumulation of experimental data above all else, falsely equating “data” with “truth” and ignoring the actual purpose of science: the elevation of theoretical cognition.
Because modern researchers spend their time chasing data for journal publications rather than reading academic monographs to deepen their theoretical understanding, the overall theoretical competence of academia has plummeted. (For instance, in microwave absorption theory, mainstream scientists frequently fail to grasp even basic undergraduate principles of wave superposition). Because researchers lack the theoretical foundation to spot scientific impossibilities, experimental fraud easily slips through the cracks. Fraud is cheap to produce, and the theoretical poverty of reviewers makes it highly likely to be published.
Conclusion: A Call for True Accountability
Academic fraud utilizing taxpayer money is not just a mistake; it is a crime. Yet, the current academic-administrative complex actively protects the fraudsters.
If we want to save science, we must dismantle the exoneration template. Accountability must travel all the way up the chain. The Corresponding Author must face severe consequences, including the loss of their career and funding. Furthermore, we must establish mechanisms to hold editors and peer reviewers accountable for gross negligence or complicity, rather than allowing journals to maintain their unearned aura of infallibility.
When solid evidence of fraud is placed in front of us, feigning “caution” to protect powerful figures is a profound evil. In the scientific community, fraud is a terrible crime, but protecting that fraud, and allowing the true culprits to continue defining the future of science, is an even greater one. The ultimate test for organizations like the Ministry of Education, national funding bodies, and journals like Nature is whether they have the courage to trace the chain of responsibility to its true origin, rather than settling for the blood of a scapegoat.
(00:00:01):
大家好,我是吴树,不知道大家有没有看统计大学造假的这个事情没错,就是我们国家只要出现的图片无用恕我悲观一点,在我这儿我都会默认为就是学生造假且不说后面的数据的问题这个事情我本来觉得已经没有什么聊的了然后突然在半夜睡觉的时候想到了一个新的更恶心的角度和结果的预期所以还是想出来聊一聊我悲观的非常难受的观点
(00:00:28):
就是这里面可能会产生一个有罪的替罪羊什么叫有罪的替罪羊就是它在这个体系之下
(00:00:35):
我不拿马县长怎么拿马县长不拿朱市长怎么拿朱市长不拿蒋委员怎么拿在这样的一个体系里不管他的动机纯洁不纯洁在中国的学术界可能很多人都在这样的一个完全的可以叫做学术腐败的体系里然后要么不出事他将来变成了这样的人要么出事他出来当替则员而真正的让这个体系自身而下贪腐的凶手可能还是逍遥法外的最后他也就是一个即个过行
(00:01:05):
严重的失查责任最后他还是当他的领导过了甚至可能几个月就可以改头换面的出现在各种各样的讲座里首先我们先说啊就是这个里面最可能被推出来的T字羊是谁不是这个现在在风口浪尖上出现的导师而是这个文章的第一作者然后这个第一作者是谁是同济大学的一个金某某
(00:01:27):
他被质疑了之后他以作者的身份去回应这个问题然后并且回应什么图片刊物然后对于数据的问题他说这是数据分析软件的结果然后贴出了原始数据但是这里面就有一个非常关键的细节就是出来公开去挡枪的或者挡这个子弹的是第一作者而不是通讯作者而我们在新闻里你会发现包括比如说饶益老师他炮轰的这个文章里面真正出问题的火力集中点会放在谁身上放在导师也就是通讯作者的身上
(00:01:56):
那王某就是他的导师这个作者的身份是这个论文的唯一的通讯作者在论文的署名体系里这个通讯作者也是要承担专门的甚至是最终的责任的那我们中国的我们简单的讲一讲就是不管是在北大的也好还是在其他的院校也好就是这种顶级的实验室的运作机制之下发一篇Nature这样的文章我先说一个结论就是导师不可能不知道全部的流程过程
(00:02:25):
所以说你会发现的是就大家什么都没听过就是你现在是个本科生你应该也知道有一个东西叫组绘然后在中国生命科学的这个顶级的课题组里它的信息传导的这个链条你随便找一个学长学姐问一下是非常严密的然后你整个的比如第一个实验设计的阶段你每一个实验一定是要像PI也就是所谓的这个组长对吧所谓的这个头头甚至你可以理解为学术界的包装头他们从上面拿下你上面是什么是
(00:02:54):
国家的各种基金委对吧就是你这个方向要告诉他然后他审核之后拍吧然后到了像可能发Nature这样的级别的研究他的从最开始的idea到这个方向策略实验方案绝不是学生自己拍脑袋做下来的甚至不是一代的学生做下来的是一代一代做下来的第二个就是数据汇报的阶段这个是组汇的标配对吧然后重要数据的汇报和进展一定是一个惯例那从最开始的里面整理的数据
(00:03:22):
到PPT上组会大家一起看这是发顶刊之前的长达数个月乃至几年的一个积累过程然后头的时候又有一个写作的过程是可能导师啊或者是通讯作者就是身份的这个人会逐字逐句的修改然后才会有一板一板的迭代然后数据的图表原始数据的补充这些都需要导师进行审核和签字
(00:03:48):
然后最关键的是可笑的是就是这个王某啊就是这个我们说应该更应该集中火力的这个导师他还说过什么说过十年磨一剑咋了磨剑的时候你都上厕所去了然后说这两项工作就是两个出问题的工作先后两年的都是我们长时间的积累你怎么可能不知情就是换句话来讲甚至其他的里面我也认为比如说其他的同类的世界里面没说过这个话的他导师通讯作者也不可能不知情关键的是你说过呀
(00:04:15):
你说过十年磨一剑你说过经过了多长时间的积累然后你现在怎么可能不承担主要和主刀责任呢对吧然后在真正的学术规范里通讯作者的职责白纸黑字的是写着的第一条对数据的真实性论文的整体质量承担最终责任注意了吗这个甚至你不能去开脱说
(00:04:39):
他是导师这个论文是学生写的他失查他只是签了名字而是他有义务去保证这些东西没问题听懂了吗再来一遍他有义务去保证这些东西没问题所以在这个地方不要再引入另一个点就是这个项目本身是拿了国家的基金来资助的就是我们理论上是什么是你进行了一个科学探索经过重重的评审
(00:05:07):
就是你科学研究失败是很正常的比如我们发射火箭也会失败对吧
(00:05:35):
但是这个中间没有贪腐没有造假我们是可以接受的现在问题是什么他拿了一个奖的花着你的钱去造假这个事才是他真正的恶劣之处对不对所以为什么永远就造假比做不出来是更可恶的这也是我们为什么要严厉的声讨这件事情对吧
(00:05:53):
但是最后的结果是什么很有可能就是这个王某他是一个院长他是一个处地干部他是一个完整的行政学术的复合体的一个受益联合重要组成体系而这个复合体就像我们说美国有这个军工复合体一样他有足够的动力和资源把它给保下来把一个板上钉钉的造假案变成一个因为研究生操作失误或者说这个图片管理不当变成了一个不规范事件然后最后就是牺牲一两个小兵比如说这个Nature的这个
(00:06:22):
第一作者出来背锅说自己填错了老板并不知情所以说你会发现我们国家已经有了好几遍这可以成为模板了就你教学比如我教学上考研作文模板的时候我们现在学术界已经可以说是有学术造假的脱罪模板第一步叫做重新定性造假数据这种主观的恶意的恶劣的造管数据造数据造假变成什么数据管理不规范或者是操作失误就是统计的这个调查里面已经开始做这样的铺垫了对吧叫做什么
(00:06:52):
王某在数据管理实验室管理团队管理等方面存在漏洞和不足暴露出对科研作风学风建设重视不够那这句话读起来是干嘛听起来像同济大学开始重视这个事了不是是这个学校在给这个事做开脱不是吗这个本质叫啥按照我们正常的科研组会的体系你是一个正常的在本科或者是研究生受过高等教育的人你都知道我们国家那个组会恨不得把那个学生剥削成什么了就剥削的比我们大厂那种996的工人还要惨
(00:07:22):
然后你说这些事里它剥削到那个强度它是疏于管理放这第一步重新定义第二步是什么给执行人甩锅金某某已经做出了两次回应客观上形成了他是一个最终责任人和第一操作者但是真正要找的具体的责任人或者一定是跑不掉的应该是谁应该是这个里面的通讯作者第三步
(00:07:46):
就是进一步脱罪就是通讯作者声称自己对数据处理不知情强调充分信任学生形成了管理漏洞对吧所以你会发现我们现在这一二三步的辩护路径在国内的高校体系里国内的科研体系里已经重复了一万遍其实咋说呢你按照他们那个基金的数量这种事主观造假换句话来讲什么这个按照公司挪用的
(00:08:15):
规定对吧按照这个我们的这个行贿受贿的规定按照这个抢劫盗窃的规定全都是可以入刑的这些人在干嘛在拿着你的钱造假然后轻描淡写的跟你说管理不当道歉没了而且关键的是我说现在暴露的这一个事的这个问题往前倒查我觉得好几个人说实话我觉得倒查出来三个兼十五应该是没有问题的都是按公布出来的
(00:08:45):
对吧所以最后我们再总结一下为什么这种推替队阳特别恶心就是因为它本质上还是一个现实中的权力不对的它能够再一次激发我对普通的在一线的做科研的同学的一种非常同情共情和令我难受不已的一种体察就是金某某这个文章的第一作者就换句话来讲那个学生啊他能拒绝背锅吗
(00:09:12):
他大概率还要在这个实验室里做博后做青年研究员他没有独立的职位没有自己的课题经费没有自己的单位的位置他的学术成果高度的捆绑在这个团队上假设回到他参与造假的第一天他能拒绝吗你弹幕可以敲一下换成是你你能拒绝吗所以说你就会发现我们这个国家好多好多的这种学术的案例对吧
(00:09:36):
就是你说国外也这样国外当然有这样但是国外这样不是你国内就可以接受的理由对不对关键我们国家很大程度上它这个机制是标准的转移支付用纳税人的钱来给他们做这个研究对不对但是他这个人这个现在底下的小螺丝钉没有办法说句句对吧他只能轻描淡写的被挪开甚至他连毕业都做不到而我们换句话来讲回到这个通讯作者这个导师这个王某他能丢什么
(00:10:06):
他已经是结型了已经是同济大学生命科学院的院长当然这个生命科学院是这个造假的重灾区对吧正经的二级教授而且你自己去查我们拿到结清拿到长江拿到院长拿到院士的人被指出约等于按照我刚才的标准已经算是造假的人理有几个被彻底掀翻送进去的一个都没有真的就是你自己去搜一搜这个新闻真正意义上同样类型的没有一个被彻底清算的这是一个最荒谬的问题
(00:10:35):
我们的深水区走到今天这种蛀虫什么时候去解决一下你换句话你把这些人把他们干掉其实有一个好处新人上来干干净净地干这些事新智生产力不就实现了吗你难道学术的蛀虫干掉通过人的变化不能产生新智生产力吗一样是可以的对吧但是现在是什么是这样的一个
(00:10:58):
核心超级大助虫对吧有学院的面子有学校的学科评估的体系有他的师门的老师和老师的老师还有一堆没解题的国家的重点开发的项目再加上各种基金的投入对吧牵涉其中的这个系统还有充分的自我保护的机制对吧所以说我想给大家讲的就是最后简单的收尾一下吧就是
(00:11:26):
然后就没有然后了。
(00:11:50):
而整个科研链条从起点最该承担责任的那个人将以一种深刻反思且没有反思结果的姿态留在原委继续发光放任所以这个事情真正带来的一次社会的测试我觉得不在于统计这个公报而在于基金委教育部和Nature三方的调查是否能够形成合力把责任的链条能够追到这个通讯作者的终点
(00:12:16):
如果有任何一方
