Geng Integrity Report – High-Power High-Efficiency Low-Noise Single-Frequency Er:YAG Non-Planar Ring Oscillator Laser (Invited, Chin. J. Lasers, 2026)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report evaluates the above paper (DOI: 10.3788/CJL260445) by Jiao Yusong, Yu Yang, Zang Xianqing, Wu Weichong, Gao Chunqing, published in Chinese Journal of Lasers in 2026, focusing on a 22.5 W single-frequency Er:YAG NPRO laser at 80 K. The overall verdict is "Questionable" (🟡), but the qualification is purely technical: two image-based checks could not be executed because only plain text was available, so the reviewer could not rule on potential reuse, splicing, or manipulation of figures. All text-based checks passed. The headline efficiency (22.5 W / 28.9 W = 77.85%, reported as 77.9%) and the room-temperature figure (13.9 W / 28.9 W = 48.09%, reported as 48.1%) were verified arithmetically and match exactly. Power stability (0.6%) and beam quality factors (Mx² = 1.31, My² = 1.34) are physically plausible. The submission timeline (received 2026-01-12, revised 2026-03-08, online 2026-03-17, print 2026-06) indicates a normal ~2-month peer-review window. Equipment (Ophire Spiricon Pyrocam III, Thorlabs PM100D) and prior-work citation [19] are consistent with the group's track record. No statistical red flags were detected. Confidence in text findings is high; confidence in image findings is zero by construction.

Verdict

🟡 Questionable (qualified by lack of image data rather than by detected misconduct).

Key findings

Mathematical consistency of headline performance numbers is exact: 22.5 W / 28.9 W = 0.7785 → 77.9% (80 K, low-temperature operation); 13.9 W / 28.9 W = 0.4809 → 48.1% (room temperature). No fabrication signatures.
Statistical content is minimal and unremarkable: 0.6% rms power stability over 30 min, Mx² = 1.31, My² = 1.34 — all physically plausible for a single-frequency Er:YAG NPRO laser.
Publication timeline (received 2026-01-12; revised 2026-03-08; online 2026-03-17; print 2026-06) is consistent with a standard monthly-journal peer-review cycle of ~2 months; no "flash" submission.
Equipment identifiers (Ophire/Spiricon Pyrocam III pyroelectric camera, Thorlabs PM100D power meter) correspond to real commercial products; physics rationale for switching pump wavelength from 1532.3 nm to the 1532.5 nm satellite peak to avoid saturation bleaching at cryogenic temperatures is internally consistent.
Reference [19] (Yu Y et al., Applied Optics, 2025) plausibly represents prior work from the same group on Er:YAG NPROs.
Two image-based checks (Figure 1–13 reuse scan; Figures 11 and 13 splicing scan) could not be performed because no pixel data were available; domain norms (laser physics) make biology-style figure fraud unlikely but cannot be excluded.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.3788/CJL260445
80 K performance: 22.5 W output / 28.9 W pump → 77.9% optical-to-optical efficiency (verified: 0.7785).
300 K performance: 13.9 W output / 28.9 W pump → 48.1% optical-to-optical efficiency (verified: 0.4809).
Power stability: 0.6% (30 min, full power).
Beam quality: Mx² = 1.31, My² = 1.34.
Timeline: Received 2026-01-12; revised 2026-03-08; online first 2026-03-17; scheduled print 2026-06.
Equipment: "Ophire Spirican Pyrocam III" pyroelectric detector (note: report uses "Ophire" / "Spirican" spellings; market-standard product is "Ophir Spiricon Pyrocam III" — minor typographical inconsistency in the original report) and PM100D power meter.
Citation [19]: Yu Y et al., Applied Optics, 2025, same research group.

Notes

The "Questionable" label reflects an evidence gap, not a positive finding of fraud; all available textual and numerical indicators support the authors' claims.
Image-based re-use or splicing of Figures 1–13, 11, and 13 was not assessable from text alone; no claim of image manipulation is made.
"Ophire Spirican" in the original report appears to be a transliteration/typo for Ophir Spiricon; this does not affect the verdict but should be corrected if the report is republished.
Minor wording in the source ("Ophire Spirican Pyrocam Ⅲ") may itself be a transcription artifact and is flagged here for transparency.
Recommended optional follow-up only: if raw interferometric and beam-quality figures become available, a pixel-level re-inspection of Figures 11 and 13 would close the remaining uncertainty.