Integrity review report: Optimization and accuracy validation of near-space 1.27 μm O2(a1Δg) dayglow forward model based on limb observation mode

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates the article by Guoyin Zeng, Wei Xiong, Zhiwei Li, Haiyan Luo and Yuan An, published in Geo-spatial Information Science (DOI: 10.1080/10095020.2026.2633870, online April 2026). The overall verdict is that the paper appears clean. The only flagged item is a typographical/typesetting artifact in Section 4.2.1, where the string "March 15 June 200115" appears to be a line-wrap garble of "March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 16, 2010", a transcription error rather than data fabrication. Satellite orbit numbers (42033, 43350, 44667, 45988) correspond to ~14 orbits/day across the 92-day intervals, matching ENVISAT-class LEO orbital mechanics and supporting data provenance. Zenodo deposit 10.5281/zenodo.15354984 is consistent with a recent upload. Table 1 perturbation values are non-integer, non-arithmetic floats consistent with radiative-transfer outputs. Limitations: no raw figures or code were independently re-executed; conclusions rest on textual and numerical consistency checks only.

Verdict

Cleared. No substantive evidence of data fabrication, image manipulation, or citation forgery. One minor typesetting artifact warrants a corrigendum but does not affect scientific content.

Key findings

Section 4.2.1 contains a typographical garble ("March 15 June 200115") that decodes to four 2010 dates; likely a PDF extraction or line-wrap artifact, not fabrication.
Orbit numbers 42033, 43350, 44667, 45988 yield ~14.31–14.36 orbits/day across 92-day intervals, consistent with a Sun-synchronous low-Earth orbit such as ENVISAT/SCIAMACHY. This level of internal numerical consistency is unusual in fraudulent work and supports authenticity.
Table 1 perturbation entries (e.g., −13.00%, −14.20%, −12.85%) are non-integer, non-arithmetic floats with physically plausible non-linear variation across altitude and wavelength, consistent with radiative-transfer model output rather than invented numbers.
Cited tools and databases (SASKTRAN, MODTRAN5, HITRAN) and references (Sun et al. 2022; Diouf et al. 2024; others up to 2025) are consistent with the submission timeline for a 2026 article.
The paper is a computational/simulation study using limb-viewing remote-sensing forward modeling and inversion; no Western blots, microscopy, or imaging data are involved, so image-based fraud (duplication, splicing) is not applicable.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.1080/10095020.2026.2633870
Data availability: Zenodo deposit referenced as 10.5281/zenodo.15354984
Reported dates: March 15, June 15, September 15, December 16, 2010
Reported orbits: 42,033 / 43,350 / 44,667 / 45,988
Computed rate: (43350 − 42033)/92 = 14.32 orbits/day; (44667 − 43350)/92 = 14.31; (45988 − 44667)/92 = 14.36 — all within expected LEO range.
Section 4.2.1 garble: "Global SCIAMACHY datasets from March 15 June 200115, September 15, and 16 December 2010 (orbit numbers 42,033, 43,350, 44,667, and 45,988, respectively)"

Notes

The string "March 15 June 200115" appears to arise from two adjacent date entries ("March 15,"/"June 15,") colliding in the PDF text layer, producing an apparent "June 200115" fusion with the surrounding characters. An author-side corrigendum is optional but recommended for clarity.
No raw spectra, retrieval outputs, or Fortran/Matlab source code were independently re-run; verification is limited to logical, arithmetic, bibliographic, and stylistic consistency.
Confidence: moderate-to-high for clearance on fabrication and image fraud; low for absolute certainty, since computational papers require code-level reproducibility checks that fall outside this review's scope.