Integrity Review Report: Joint Retrieval of Ozone Profile in Near Space Based on the Atmospheric and Near Infrared Atmospheric Bands of O2 Airglow

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

Verdict: No clear indicators of academic fraud were identified in this 2025 IEEE TGRS paper (DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2025.3598100) by Weiwei He et al. The review found four areas of analysis: image reuse analysis was limited because only plain text was available, ruling out pixel-level comparison of figures; statistical and data logic appeared internally consistent, with a reported deviation of <1 ppmv versus SABER data and a linear correlation coefficient of 0.96 against MIPAS data, along with transparent acknowledgment of error increases at ~70 km (self-absorption) and above 90 km (reduced SNR); the timeline was coherent, using 2011 SCIAMACHY/ENVISAT observations prior to the satellite's loss of contact in 2012; and the methodology, including photochemical equations (5–8), onion-peeling inversion (equations13–15), and HITRAN-based spectral data, was described in detail. Limitations: no image-level verification was possible, and final adjudication requires peer review or institutional investigation.

Verdict

✅ No clear evidence of academic fraud was identified based on the text-level analysis available. Image-level verification was not possible due to the absence of high-resolution original figures.

Key findings

Image reuse analysis constrained: Only plain-text content (with some OCR artifacts) was available, preventing pixel-level comparison of figures such as radiation spectra or satellite remote-sensing plots. No judgment could be made regarding Western blot, microscopy, or spectral image duplication.
Data and statistics are internally consistent: Reported deviations of <1 ppmv against SABER data and a 0.96 linear correlation coefficient against MIPAS data align with typical remote-sensing inversion studies. The authors transparently discuss error growth due to self-absorption near 70 km and SNR degradation above 90 km.
Timeline and instrument usage are logically consistent: 2011 SCIAMACHY/ENVISAT observation dates (e.g., May 19, 2011; April 19, 2011) are consistent with the satellite's operational period before contact loss in April 2012. The 2025 publication date does not conflict with the use of historical remote-sensing data.
Methodology is detailed and rigorous: The paper provides photochemical kinetic equations (equations 5–8), the "onion peeling" inversion algorithm (equations 13–15), and uses the HITRAN database for spectral parameters, with no internal contradictions observed.

Evidence highlights

Abstract/Conclusion: "deviation of less than 1 part per million (ppm) by volume compared with the SABER data and a linear correlation coefficient of 0.96 compared with MIPAS data."
Section IV: explicit discussion of SNR decrease at high altitudes and self-absorption-induced error at low altitudes, indicating realistic reporting of imperfect data.
Observation dates cited: May 19, 2011; April 19, 2011, consistent with the ENVISAT mission timeline.
Section II: explicit reference to "the calculation of the jump probabilities was based on the HITRAN database."
Mathematical consistency between equations 5–8 (photochemistry) and 13–15 (onion-peeling inversion), with physical processes such as self-absorption correction described in matching context.

Notes

Confidence: moderate. Text-level checks passed; however, image-level integrity (manipulation, reuse) could not be assessed without access to original high-resolution figures.
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2025.3598100.
Suggested follow-up (optional): request open-source code or validation data links from the authors if peer-review disputes arise.
This report is AI-assisted and intended for academic discussion only; formal determinations require institutional investigation.