Geng Report: Chloroplast Genome Features and Comparative Analysis of Nine Actinidia Species from Guizhou — Data Integrity Issues

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses a 2026 preprint in Guihaia (DOI: 10.11931/guihaia.gxzw202512031) on chloroplast genomes of nine Actinidia species. Verdict: highly suspicious. The most serious finding is an internal arithmetic inconsistency in Table 2: for Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa, the reported genome size of 156,048 bp does not match the sum of its component regions (LSC 88,149 + SSC 20,331 + 2 × IR 23,542 = 155,564 bp), leaving a 484 bp discrepancy. In contrast, other species in the same table reconcile correctly. A second issue is a mismatch between the text and Table 2: the abstract states the genome size range is 155,660–156,770 bp, but A. linearifolia is listed at 155,648 bp, which is below the claimed minimum. The paper follows a highly templated chloroplast-genomics workflow without mechanistic depth, and pixel-level image analysis was not possible from text alone. Timeline checks are consistent. Overall, findings indicate sloppy data handling rather than proven fabrication; confidence is high for the arithmetic error and high for the text–table mismatch. Final judgment requires author response and institutional review.

Verdict

Highly suspicious. The core Table 2 of the paper contains an internal mathematical contradiction for one species (a 484 bp gap between the reported genome size and the sum of its four component regions), and the manuscript text contradicts its own Table 2 on the reported minimum genome size. No evidence of image manipulation was assessed because only text was available. The findings do not constitute proven fabrication but indicate severely careless data handling inconsistent with publication standards.

Key findings

Arithmetic inconsistency in Table 2 (highly severe): For *Actinidia chinensis* var. *deliciosa*, LSC = 88,149 bp, SSC = 20,331 bp, IR (single copy length reported) = 23,542 bp. Sum = 88,149 + 20,331 + (23,542 × 2) = 155,564 bp. The table's "Genome size" column lists 156,048 bp, a discrepancy of 484 bp. All other species in the same table (e.g., *A. polygama*, *A. chinensis*, *A. callosa*) reconcile exactly. This points to a copy-paste row-misalignment error in the spreadsheet rather than a biological anomaly.
Text–Table 2 mismatch (moderate): The abstract and Results section state the total length range is 155,660–156,770 bp. However, *A. linearifolia* is recorded in Table 2 at 155,648 bp, which is 12 bp below the stated minimum. The lower bound cited in the text appears to have been taken from *A. callosa* (155,660 bp) without scanning the full table.
Templated chloroplast-genomics workflow (informational): The paper follows a standard pipeline (DNA extraction → Illumina sequencing → assembly → annotation → circle map → SSR scan → codon usage → mVISTA alignment → phylogeny). No deeper mechanistic question is posed. The team has multiple comparable 2025/2026 outputs, consistent with high-throughput, assembly-line publication. Not fraud, but low novelty.
Image analysis not performed (limitation): Figures 1–7 could not be examined at pixel level from the available text-only record; Western blots, gels, and genome maps remain unverified.
Timeline consistency check (passed): Sample codes beginning with AcD23 / AcD24 indicate 2023–2024 collection, consistent with the 2026 preprint date. Funding code "黔科合平台ZSYS[2025]" is consistent with an in-progress or recently concluded grant. No chronological anomalies detected.

Evidence highlights

| Item | Reported value | Expected / Cross-check | Discrepancy | |---|---|---|---| | *A. chinensis* var. *deliciosa* genome size (Table 2) | 156,048 bp | 88,149 + 20,331 + 2 × 23,542 = 155,564 bp | +484 bp | | *A. linearifolia* genome size (Table 2) | 155,648 bp | Stated text minimum = 155,660 bp | −12 bp | | Other species in Table 2 | Reconciled | LSC + SSC + 2 × IR = total | None | | Stated range (abstract & §2.1) | 155,660–156,770 bp | Excludes *A. linearifolia* (155,648 bp) | Inconsistent | | DOI | 10.11931/guihaia.gxzw202512031 | — | Preserved |

Notes

The 484 bp gap for a single species, while the other eight species reconcile, strongly suggests an editorial/data-entry error rather than systematic measurement failure. The same length value (23,542 bp IR) appears in multiple rows, which is internally consistent for that column.
The 12 bp text–table mismatch is small in magnitude but indicates that summary statistics were written without re-checking the underlying table — a recurrent hallmark of template-driven writing.
Confidence is high for the arithmetic error and high for the text–table mismatch, both verifiable from the reported numbers. Confidence is low / not assessable for any claim about image integrity, authorship, or peer-review manipulation.
No fabricated biological claims have been identified; the issues are concentrated in data tabulation and manuscript–data consistency.
Recommended follow-ups: (1) request the authors' raw assembly and annotation files to re-derive region lengths; (2) flag the Table 2 arithmetic and abstract range on PubPeer; (3) request a corrigendum before final publication.
This report is AI-assisted and intended for academic discussion only; final determination of misconduct requires investigation by the authors' institution or the journal editorial office.