对甘肃农业大学动物医学院魏彦明等人基金申请学术不端的举报

使用CN2/CN2GIA顶级线路，支持Shadowsocks/V2ray科学上网，支持支付宝付款，每月仅需 5 美元

## 加入品葱精选 Telegram Channel ##

对甘肃农业大学动物医学院魏彦明等人基金申请学术不端的举报

国家自然科学基金委：

甘肃农业大学动物医学院魏彦明 纪鹏 华永丽等人在国自然基金申请文章发表中多次一图两用，两篇文章共享完全相同的图片，被pubpeer 曝光，但仍然坚持惯用技俩，多次如法炮制，多次骗取国家自然科学基金，现将详情曝光如下，请基金委查处！

单位信息链接： 　　https://dy.gsau.edu.cn/info/1162/1413.htm　　https://dy.gsau.edu.cn/info/1162/1379.htm 　　https://dy.gsau.edu.cn/info/1162/4589.htm

在研项目：

1.主持国家自然科学基金项目“基于代谢组学方法的当归及其不同炮制品作用机理研究”（项目编号：31272600，2013.01-2016.12.），经费80.00万元，

3.主持甘肃省科技支撑计划-社会发展类项目“当归炮制后药效变化的科学内涵变化规律及其不同炮制品质量标准的研究”（项目编号：1204FKCA161，2013.01-2015.12.），经费8.00万元。

文章题目 ：Characterization and antioxidative activities of polysaccharide in Chinese angelica and its processed products

文章标注基金号： AcknowledgementsThe project is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (30972210, 31272600). We are grateful to all other staff inthe Institute of Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine of GansuAgricultural University for their assistance in the experiments.

Pubpeer 曝光链接：https://pubpeer.com/publications/71D8FACCB587F756A94C838E56BFB9

https://pubpeer.com/publications/4A43AE18FAC805965DDC3A8895130D

Characterization and antioxidative activities of polysaccharide in Chinese angelica and its processed productsInternational journal of biological macromolecules (2014) - 5 Commentsdoi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.03.025 issn: 0141-8130 pubmed: 24680904 issn: 1879-0003 Peng Ji author has email , Yanming Wei author has email , Wenxin Xue author has email , Yongli Hua author has email , Man Zhang author has email , Hongguo Sun author has email , Zhixue Song author has email , Ling Zhang author has email , Jinxia Li author has email , Haifu Zhao author has email , Wenquan Zhang author has emailInstitute of Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gansu Agricult…#1 Elisabeth M Bik commented 9 months agoThe panels in Figure 3 of this paper look very similar to the panels in Figure 1 in another paper by the same research group. Some of the panels might represent treatment of mice with the same concoction of “Chinese angelica”, but other panels appear to represent different treatments.

That other paper is Yongli Hua et al., Journal of Ethnopharmacology 151 (2014) 1090–1099, DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2013.12.011 - see https://pubpeer.com/publications/4A43AE18FAC805965DDC3A8895130D. The Hua et al. paper was accepted on December 6, 2013, while this Ji et al. paper was submitted on December 19, 2013, so after acceptance of the Hua paper.

From the description of the mouse experiments in both papers it seems that these were different experiments. Hua paper: Mice kept at 25 degrees C, 40% relative humidity, 6 groups of 10 mice each. Ji paper: Mice kept at 22 degrees C, 50% relative humidity, 7 groups of 7 mice each.

Could the authors comment on the following concerns, please?

If two different sets of mice were used, how can the liver photos of the model and control group look so identical?How can the liver sections of mice treated with differently prepared Chinese angelica look so similar? For example, the liver marked in yellow represents the mouse treated with the soil preparation in the Ji paper, but also the charred preparation in the Hua paper. Similarly, the aqua live represents unprocessed preparation in the Ji paper and soil prep in the Hua paper.Did the authors consider any issues with copyright and/or lack of novelty by publishing the same study or photos twice?

(XYS20201126)

最简单好用的 VPS,没有之一，注册立得 100 美金