Academic Fraud Investigation Report: Purification of Simulated Aquaculture Wastewater by Novel Fly Ash Ceramsite-Immobilized Effective Microbial Consortia (DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20190443)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates '新型粉煤灰陶粒固定化有效微生物群落对模拟水产养殖废水净化效果' (Chen Shuang et al., Journal of Zhejiang A&F University, 2020) for academic integrity. Verdict: Highly suspicious (orange flag). Five major issues were identified: (1) basic chemistry errors, including the non-existent compound '二氧化三铁' (likely a confusion of Fe2O3/Fe3O4) and contradictory descriptions of 'reduced iron powder' vs. iron oxides; (2) the conclusion misattributes numerical evidence—claiming the highest abrasion rate (1.78%) and specific surface area (2.21 m²·g⁻¹), whereas Table 2 shows T2 is best (1.43% abrasion, 2.83 m²·g⁻¹), with 1.78% being T3's abrasion and 2.21 m²·g⁻¹ being T1's surface area; (3) mechanistic self-contradiction, invoking anaerobic polyphosphate release in a continuously aerated system; (4) axis labeling errors in Figures 2 and 5 inconsistent with the experimental timeline; (5) elemental mass fractions summing to >100% (T1=102.25%, T2=102.64%). Limitations: AI-assisted detection; final adjudication requires institutional investigation.

Verdict

🟠 Highly suspicious. The paper contains multiple fundamental errors in basic chemistry, internal data contradictions between the conclusion and tables, mechanistic claims inconsistent with the experimental design, and suspect figure construction. Collectively, these strongly suggest fabricated or copy-pasted content rather than genuine research.

Key findings

Falsified/incoherent chemistry: The paper references a non-existent compound "二氧化三铁"; iron oxides are correctly Fe2O3 (三氧化二铁/氧化铁) and Fe3O4 (四氧化三铁). "氧化铁" and "三氧化二铁" are the same compound but listed as two distinct substances.
Data–conclusion mismatch (Finding 2): Conclusion ③ states maximum abrasion rate 1.78% and surface area 2.21 m²·g⁻¹. Per Table 2, T2 has the best performance (abrasion 1.43%, surface area 2.83 m²·g⁻¹); 1.78% corresponds to T3 abrasion and 2.21 m²·g⁻¹ to T1 surface area.
Mechanistic contradiction (Finding 3): Section 2.3 explains total phosphorus fluctuations via anaerobic polyphosphate release by PAOs, but Section 1.4 specifies continuous aerobic cultivation via 6-day aeration—anaerobic conditions are not present.
Figure axis errors (Finding 4): Figure 2 x-axis is labeled "t/d" (days) although the 1.3-section adsorption experiment ran 24 h with hourly sampling; Figure 5 shows an anomalous "10" axis tick before 2–6, suggestive of a stretched or altered "0".
Mass balance violation (Finding 5): Table 3 elemental mass fractions sum to >100% (T1 = 102.25%; T2 = 102.64%), inconsistent with normalized XRF/EDS output.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.11833/j.issn.2095-0756.20190443
Author contradiction: Section 1.2 describes "还原铁粉" (reduced iron powder, elemental Fe) but later switches to "铁粉 (氧化铁和二氧化三铁)" — a category mismatch from elemental to oxidized form.
Specific numerical inconsistencies: T2 abrasion 1.43% (Table 2) ≠ cited 1.78% (Conclusion); T2 surface area 2.83 m²·g⁻¹ (Table 2) ≠ cited 2.21 m²·g⁻¹ (Conclusion).
Experimental design vs. mechanism: Section 1.4 specifies "常温条件下曝气培养6 d" (continuous aeration), yet Section 2.3 invokes "厌氧条件下" polyphosphate release.
Temporal mismatch: Adsorption sampling at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24 h (hours) plotted against "t/d" (days).
Mass fraction totals: T1 = 102.25%; T2 = 102.64% (both exceed 100%).

Notes

This is an AI-assisted analysis; conclusions are indicative, not definitive.
Recommended actions: request raw XRF spectra and lab notebooks from authors; post concerns on PubPeer; report to the editorial office of 浙江农林大学学报; report to the authors' institution (河海大学).
Possible explanations include copy-paste artifacts, template reuse, or fabrication, but innocent explanations (e.g., severe proofreading failure without fabrication) cannot be entirely ruled out without original data.
No definitive proof of intentional misconduct is established by text analysis alone; institutional investigation with access to raw data is required.