Investigation Report: High-Power High-Efficiency Low-Noise Single-Frequency Er:YAG Non-Planar Ring Cavity Laser (DOI: 10.3788/CJL260445)

Academic fraud report · Geng Detector

Summary

This report assesses a 2026 Chinese Lasers paper by Jiao Yusong et al. on a high-power, high-efficiency, low-noise, single-frequency Er:YAG non-planar ring laser. The overall verdict is 'Questionable' (yellow), driven primarily by limitations rather than confirmed misconduct. Pixel-level image analysis was not possible because high-resolution figures were unavailable, so reuse, splicing, and Photoshop artifacts in Figures 1–13 could not be evaluated. A minor numerical inconsistency was identified: the reported slope efficiency of 82.6% does not match a two-point linear calculation from the stated values (22.5 W output, 28.9 W pump, 1.76 W threshold), which yields ~82.9%, a discrepancy of about 0.3%. The optical-to-optical efficiency of 77.9% is mathematically consistent. The submission timeline and prior-work progression (reference [19], Yu Y et al., Applied Optics, 2025) are logically coherent, and equipment models are specified. Confidence is limited by the lack of image access; findings should be treated as preliminary.

Verdict

🟡 Questionable — limited by image access; one minor numerical inconsistency noted but no confirmed misconduct.

Key findings

Image analysis blocked: High-resolution figures were not obtained, so pixel-level checks for duplication, splicing, and noise-pattern manipulation across Figures 1–13 could not be performed.
Minor slope-efficiency inconsistency: A two-point linear calculation from the reported values (22.5 W output at 28.9 W pump, threshold 1.76 W) yields a slope efficiency of approximately 82.90%, versus the paper's reported 82.6% — a deviation of roughly 0.3 percentage points.
Optical-to-optical efficiency verified: 22.5 W / 28.9 W = 77.8512…%, rounded to 77.9% as stated; internally consistent.
Timeline and equipment plausibility: Received 2026-01-12; cites a 2025 prior publication by the same group (ref [19], Yu Y, Jiao YS et al., Applied Optics, 2025); commercial instruments specified (Yokogawa AQ6370D spectrometer; Ophir Spiricon Pyrocam III pyroelectric detector).
Methodology continuity: Introduction appropriately positions ref [8] (16 W, 50.15% efficiency) as prior work, consistent with a stepwise research progression.

Evidence highlights

DOI: 10.3788/CJL260445
Reported figures at 80 K: output power 22.5 W; pump power 28.9 W; threshold 1.76 W; optical-to-optical efficiency 77.9%; slope efficiency 82.6%.
Figure 7 description: pump fixed at 28.9 W, output decreasing from 22.5 W to 13.9 W as temperature rises.
Recalculation: slope efficiency ≈ 22.5 / (28.9 − 1.76) ≈ 22.5 / 27.14 ≈ 82.90%.
Submission date: 2026-01-12; reference [19] year: 2025 (logical order).

Notes

Image-forensic methods could not be applied; conclusions on figure integrity are explicitly out of scope.
The 0.3 percentage-point deviation in slope efficiency is small and could plausibly arise from curve fitting rather than from data fabrication, but the raw data and fit details are not provided in the text available for review.
No contact with the authors is recommended at this stage; if high-resolution figures become available, re-examination would be warranted.