Academic Integrity Report: 'Effects of Florfenicol on the Operational Efficiency and Microbial Mechanism of Constructed Wetland–Microbial Electrolysis Cell System' (DOI: 10.16796/j.cnki.1000⁃3770.2026.05.014)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report presents a detailed academic-integrity review of a paper published in Technology of Water Treatment (水处理技术), Vol. 52, Issue 5, May 2026. Verdict: Confirmed major anomalies (实锤). Six independent issues were identified: (1) an implausible '204 °C constant-temperature greenhouse' in which aquatic plants (Iris pseudacorus) are said to be cultivated — almost certainly a typographical artifact of '20±4 °C' or '20.4 °C', but the text was not corrected; (2) identical Chao1 indices (2001.7540) reported for ECW1 before and after florfenicol dosing to four decimal places — biologically implausible for independent environmental samples; (3) phyla relative abundances in ECW2 that mathematically sum to >100% (42.86% + 10.95% + a stated 48.18–73.22% for three other phyla); (4) internal inconsistencies: Section 1.1 defines four groups but Figure 2 legend lists eight, and a stray 'Figure 3.7' indicates copy-paste from a thesis; (5) abstract claims specific N2O (−11.36%) and CO2 (−12.95%) flux reductions absent from the body text; (6) GWP 'drop rate of 9.70%' is inconsistent with the reported numerical ranges (≈3.1% by midpoint, ≤8.4% by extremum). These findings collectively suggest severe data fabrication, copy-paste composition, or grossly inadequate peer review. Confidence is high for findings 2–4; finding 1 is likely a typo but reflects poor editing. Recommended actions include requesting raw FASTQ files and tabulated data, posting on PubPeer, and notifying the journal editorial office.

Verdict

Confirmed serious anomalies. Multiple independent internal contradictions and arithmetic impossibilities indicate either fabricated numbers, copy-paste composition from a graduate thesis, or catastrophic editorial failure. The paper cannot be relied upon in its current form.

Key findings

Implausible experimental condition: The Materials & Methods section states the experiment was conducted in a constant-temperature glass greenhouse at 204 °C at Hohai University, with *Iris pseudacorus* planted at 30 plants/m². This is biologically impossible; the value is almost certainly a corruption of "20±4 °C" or "20.4 °C" that was not corrected.
Identical Chao1 values to four decimal places: Table 1 reports Chao1 = 2001.7540 for ECW1 both *before* and *after* florfenicol dosing. Genuine biological replicates over weeks of antibiotic stress cannot yield identical values to four decimal places.
Relative abundances exceeding 100%: For ECW2, Proteobacteria (42.86%) + Bacteroidetes (10.95%) + the stated combined share of Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Nitrospira (48.18–73.22%) already exceeds 100% before any other taxa are counted.
Internal contradictions / copy-paste artifacts:
Section 1.1 defines four groups (CW1, CW2, ECW1, ECW2) but Figure 2's legend lists eight (CW1-FF, CW2-FF, ECW1-FF, ECW2-FF).
Section 2.4 begins with "(图 3.7)" — a numbering scheme inconsistent with journal convention, indicating text pasted from a thesis (likely Chapter 3).
Abstract–body mismatch: The abstract reports N2O and CO2 flux reductions of 11.36% and 12.95%; these exact figures do not appear in Section 2.1, which instead mentions only qualitative reductions and a GWP drop of 9.70%.
Arithmetic inconsistency in GWP claim: The text states GWP dropped from 124.35–131.96 to 120.84–127.53 mg CO2/(m²·h), giving a "drop rate of 9.70%". Mid-point calculation yields ≈3.1%; maximum possible drop from stated ranges is (131.96−120.84)/131.96 = 8.42%.

Evidence highlights

Finding 1, p. 89: "实验于河海大学恒温玻璃温室内（204 ℃）开展……上方以30株/m²的密度种植黄菖蒲。"
Finding 2, p. 92, Table 1: ECW1 Chao1 before FF = 2001.7540; after FF = 2001.7540 (identical to 4 decimals).
Finding 3, p. 92: "变形菌门相对丰度最高……ECW2达到42.86%；其次为拟杆菌门……达到10.95%，厚壁菌门、放线菌门和硝化螺旋菌门为主要优势门类，共同占比达48.18%～73.22%." → 42.86 + 10.95 + 48.18 = 101.99% minimum.
Finding 4, pp. 89 & 92: Four groups declared in Section 1.1 vs eight in Figure 2 legend; "图 3.7" reference in Section 2.4.
Finding 5, p. 89 vs p. 91: Abstract cites −11.36% (N2O) and −12.95% (CO2); Section 2.1 cites only a GWP reduction "降速达9.70%".
Finding 6, p. 91: GWP range 124.35–131.96 → 120.84–127.53 mg CO2/(m²·h); stated drop rate 9.70%.
DOI: 10.16796/j.cnki.1000⁃3770.2026.05.014 (preserved as provided).

Notes

Findings 2–4 are treated as high-confidence indicators of data fabrication and/or wholesale text reuse from a thesis.
Finding 1 is most plausibly a transcription error of "20±4 °C" or "20.4 °C", but the absence of correction still indicates negligent drafting/review.
Findings 5–6 are consistent with cherry-picking or fabrication of summary statistics.
Authors of record: 许明, 安名扬, 朱云翔, 沈晓笑, 吴海锁, 陈朋利. Journal: 水处理技术 (Technology of Water Treatment).
Recommended next steps: request raw high-throughput sequencing FASTQ files and underlying GHG flux time-series; post evidence on PubPeer; submit a formal complaint to the editorial office of 水处理技术 requesting an investigation.
This AI-assisted report is for scholarly discussion only; the final determination of misconduct requires an institutional investigation.