Integrity Review: Research on Pollutant Removal and Carbon Reduction by Microbial Electrochemical Technology Coupled with Constructed Wetlands and Influencing Factors

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This integrity review examines the review article 'Research on Pollutant Removal and Carbon Reduction by Microbial Electrochemical Technology Coupled with Constructed Wetlands and Influencing Factors' by Li Chuan et al., published in Modern Chemical Industry (DOI: 10.16606/j.cnki.issn0253-4320.2025.10.014, October 2025). The overall verdict is that no substantive evidence of academic misconduct was identified. The paper is a literature review rather than an original experimental study, so it does not report original datasets, statistical deviations, or significance tests that could be checked for fabrication. All quantitative figures cited (e.g., ammonia nitrogen removal rate improved by 26.83%, SDZ concentration decreasing from 2 mg/L to 0.064 mg/L) are explicitly attributed to previously published sources. The timeline is logical: received 2024-12-09, revised 2025-08-12, published October 2025, consistent with normal peer-review cycles in Chinese chemical engineering journals. Figures 1–7 appear to be schematic diagrams and bibliometric outputs (e.g., VOSviewer), and no pixel-level analysis was possible from the available text. One non-academic anomaly was noted: references [15]–[29] at the end of the article pertain to TMAH wastewater treatment, ozone micro/nano bubbles, and reverse osmosis concentrate from the steel industry, which are unrelated to the review topic. This is attributed to a journal typesetting/assembly error, not author misconduct.

Verdict

No substantive evidence of academic misconduct. The article is a literature review reporting previously published findings with proper citations. The only notable irregularity (mismatched references at the end of the article) is consistent with a journal typesetting error rather than author fraud.

Key findings

No original data fabrication risk: As a review article, the paper does not report raw experimental data, standard deviations, or p-values that could be checked for statistical anomalies.
All quantitative claims properly cited: Performance figures (e.g., ammonia nitrogen removal +26.83%, SDZ 2 mg/L → 0.064 mg/L) are attributed to specific prior publications such as references [8] and [10].
Logical publication timeline: Submitted 2024-12-09, revised 2025-08-12, published October 2025 — consistent with normal Chinese core-journal peer-review timelines.
No image manipulation evidence: Figures 1–7 are described as schematic diagrams, mechanism illustrations, and bibliometric outputs (likely from VOSviewer); no pixel-level analysis was possible from the available text.
Citation–topic mismatch (non-fraud): References [15]–[29] cover TMAH wastewater, ozone micro/nano bubbles, and steel-industry RO concentrate, which are unrelated to the review's topic — judged as a journal typesetting/拼版 error.
Reference currency appropriate: Cited literature is concentrated in 2017–2024, aligning with the field's research activity over the past decade.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.16606/j.cnki.issn0253-4320.2025.10.014
Journal: 现代化工 (Modern Chemical Industry), Vol. 45, Issue 10, October 2025
Authors: 李川, 徐元, 顾勇, 金新港, 许明
Manuscript dates: received 2024-12-09; revised 2025-08-12; published 2025-10
Specific numeric examples cited with sources: ammonia nitrogen removal rate +26.83% (ref. [8]); SDZ from 2 mg/L to 0.064 mg/L (ref. [10])
Figure inventory: Figures 1–7 identified as schematic, mechanistic, or bibliometric charts; no image duplication analysis feasible from textual record

Notes

Limitations: This review is based on textual and metadata analysis only; no raw images or supplementary data were available for pixel-level or statistical reanalysis. A definitive image-integrity assessment is therefore not possible.
The reference-list anomaly at the end of the article (refs [15]–[29]) is recommended for correction by the journal editorial office, but does not constitute author misconduct.
Confidence: high for absence of data fabrication; moderate for image-integrity status due to lack of visual evidence.